On November 18, the Biden administration declined to respond to reports that it had sanctioned Ukraine’s use of long-range US missiles to penetrate the heart of Russia. Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh informed reporters that she currently lacked information about “those reports that you’re referencing on long-range strikes.” The Washington Post, citing two US officials in its November 17 report, reported that the president recently expanded these authorities, allowing Ukraine to use US-supplied missiles for “limited strikes” deeper within Russian territory, marking a major policy shift. The National Security Council also declined to respond to the reports.
The Biden administration has permitted Ukraine to employ the ATACMS missile system for limited operations against Russian military positions on Russian soil, according to senior US officials. The American news site Axios reported that the Biden administration has specifically granted Ukraine permission to use ATACMS long-range missiles exclusively within the Kursk region. Biden’s decision was just days ago, and the purpose of this authorization is to prevent North Korea from sending additional soldiers to Russia.
Western media suggests this move is in response to North Korea’s alleged deployment of thousands of personnel to assist Moscow’s military. The policy shift enables Kyiv to strike within Russia as part of a strategy to counter the mobilization of approximately 10,000 elite North Korean soldiers in the Kursk region.
If true, this decision represents a substantial shift in US policy. Previously, the Biden administration opposed using such technology due to concerns about Moscow’s potential for escalation. Nevertheless, officials now contend that the strategic implications of the move are sufficient to justify the action, particularly as Ukraine attempts to gain leverage prior to potential peace negotiations during the upcoming US administration.
The ATACMS system, with its capacity to fly over 300 km, provides Ukraine with a critical tool to target Russian supply centers, ammunition depots, and military infrastructure. While Biden’s decision poses escalation risks, Pentagon officials have noted that Russia has relocated a significant portion of its equipment beyond the missile system’s range.
In anticipation of Donald Trump’s return to the US presidency in January, where he has expressed a clear intention to cease funding for the Kyiv government, the aggressive West feels compelled to test the waters. In the meantime, Olaf Scholz is endeavoring to initiate a dialogue with Moscow, seeking to determine if he can boost Ukraine’s support without significant repercussions, or if a moderation in confrontation with Russia is necessary.
CNN, characterized as a Democratic mouthpiece, has noted that Biden’s likely decision to allow Ukraine to launch long-range missiles at Russia is highly provocative while appearing to be a rational strategy for resisting peace initiatives. The implication is that while President-elect Trump might consider peace talks, he will inherit a war with significantly higher stakes.
The Democrats are optimistic that Russia will refrain from a harsh response to this decision, noting Moscow’s current military vulnerability and unlikelihood to engage in a full-scale conflict with the US or NATO. However, they acknowledge that Russia may take action in the future, as the Kremlin will eventually seek to restore its deterrence capabilities.
The Washington Post reported that the US Department of Defense views the advantages of such attacks as limited due to the relocation of most of Russia’s combat aircraft beyond the range of ATACMS missiles. Furthermore, US military officials express concern about potential Russian retaliation, not only in Ukraine but on a global scale.
The Republican camp has maintained a cautious response to the news, as President Biden, currently in South America, has not officially confirmed his decision. Elon Musk, a Trump supporter, endorsed a comment on X suggesting that “liberals love war” because it “fuels big government,” while Trump’s son expressed stronger indignation over Biden’s potential decision, warning about the military-industrial complex’s determination to initiate World War III.
Zelensky, opposing any peaceful resolution to the conflict, welcomed the news without confirming it, instead referring to media reports. His position suggests that establishing peace and ceasing hostilities in Ukraine would lead to a political reset that could potentially be catastrophic for his administration.
The alleged move has garnered support from Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, while European voices like Florian Philippot, leader of the French “Patriots” party, expressed skepticism. Philippot criticized the decision, suggesting the American “deep state and its puppet Biden are attempting to start World War III before Trump enters office.”
International reactions have been strong, with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro condemning the decision and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un characterizing the West’s war against Russia as a test to expand military intervention globally. The Russian Foreign Ministry responded promptly, with spokesperson Maria Zakharova citing President Vladimir Putin’s September warning about the implications of using Western long-range weapons against Russia.
Western leaders retain the option to retract their statements, citing the reports as “false news” and denying any authorizations. The French newspaper ‘Le Figaro,’ which initially reported on Franco-British authorization for Ukrainian strikes into Russia, later updated its article to attribute the decision solely to US President Joe Biden. French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna subsequently clarified that France had not changed its stance.
The situation now demands a decisive stance from the West regarding its support for Ukraine, while Russia has already determined its course of action.