Outgoing President Joe Biden has authorized Ukraine to use long-range U.S. missiles to strike deep into Russian territory, unofficial sources say citing White House officials
The move comes as the West anticipates a major counteroffensive by Russia to retake lost territory in the Kursk region with the support of thousands of North Korean fighters.
But will this decision by Joe Biden be able to change the course of the conflict in Eastern Europe? Benjamin Jensen, professor at the American University in Washington and the War School of the Marine Corps University in Virginia, answers our questions.
What types of missiles are these?
ATACMS tactical missiles are short-range ballistic missiles that can go much further than the weapons kyiv previously had.
This technology is not new: the idea dates back to the end of the 1970s and their production began during the Reagan era, around 1986. The Americans used these missiles for the first time in 1991 with Operation Storm. deserted during the first conflict against Iraq.
ATACMS have a range of around 300 km, around 50 more than the Anglo-French Storm Shadow/Scalp missile.
They are difficult to intercept and detect. They move very quickly, up to Mach 3, or three times the speed of sound, and radar systems have difficulty spotting them if the launch position is not known.
In addition, ATACMS do not depend on satellite geopositioning (GPS). They are also equipped with an inertial guidance system using gyroscopes which makes it possible to avoid GPS jamming techniques, which the Russians have been able to use successfully.
Finally, their payload, up to 225 kilos, is powerful enough to create a huge crater on impact.
Their range, terminal velocity and destructive charge can therefore make a huge difference. For the first time, Ukraine will have the ability to strike deep behind Russian lines.
The US authorization could also have a ripple effect on other allies who also hold ATACMS. Neighbors Poland and Romania have it, as do South Korea and Australia.
Why is approval coming now?
Washington's decision comes as Russian troops will benefit from reinforcements. The approximately 10,000 North Koreans already reported in Russia would likely constitute only a first wave.
This situation coincides with the concentration of 50,000 Russian soldiers near Kursk, key Russian territory which Ukraine seized at the start of the year. For several days, Russia has been carrying out incursions there which prelude a possible counter-offensive aimed at retaking this territory.
In preparation for this assault, North Korean and Russian troops, before going to the front, will have to gather far behind the lines.
The idea would be to seriously disrupt the Russian operation by striking these troops in the deep zone. However, the size, speed and range of ATACMS make them the perfect instrument for this type of attack.
If I were in a position to advise the Ukrainian military, I would tell them to use these missiles to strike staging areas, munitions sites, and airfields.
What are the intentions in Washington?
If I had to bet, I would say that we are worried about the risk of escalation, while recognizing that the conflict is beginning a transition.
President-elect Donald Trump has indicated that he wants to negotiate an end to this war. In my opinion, this authorization to use ATACMS suggests that the Biden Administration wishes to improve Ukraine's posture for possible negotiations.
Furthermore, North Korea's growing support for Moscow is an additional concern. Besides troops, Pyongyang has sent more shells to Russia than the entire European Union has sent to Ukraine. It may be that the Biden Administration has concluded that the only way for Ukraine to offset this Russian advantage is to allow it to strike North Korean troops before they deploy.
It also appears that for the Biden Administration, the imperatives of the moment outweigh the risks of engaging the United States further in this conflict or seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin further intensify it.
What does this indicate about the state of the conflict?
Based on my reading of events, and recent statements by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine may not be able to maintain its position after the spring or even summer of 2025. This conflict represents a terrible cost for the country . kyiv also has difficulty mobilizing sufficient troops, which has forced it to resort to conscription on a few occasions, something it had always wanted to avoid.
Ukraine is not completely out of steam, but it will struggle to retake more territory controlled by Russia. The conquest of the territory of Kursk was an important success, but it was a very risky bet which took advantage of exceptional circumstances. And the fighting in Russian-occupied areas of eastern Ukraine is proving difficult.
Is it therefore a question of helping Ukraine to keep control of Kursk?
Information leaking out regarding the authorization to deploy the ATACMS suggests that Washington has made it a condition that the missiles can only be used in the Kursk region.
Even if Trump is able to force negotiation, as he claims, it will not stop the fighting. These will continue until the parties agree to a ceasefire. And even after that, the fight could resume at any time.
This is why I think that Russia will bet everything on Kursk, militarily speaking. And Ukraine will do everything it can to keep control of this territory, which is its best bargaining chip in the event of negotiations.
Did Trump's victory play a role in Joe Biden's thinking?
I do think the decision to authorize ATACMS had more to do with the military situation in Ukraine than with US policy considerations. That said, it is possible that the president-elect's statements in favor of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia have become one more issue in this conflict.
