Biden Authorizes Ukraine to Fire ATACMS into Russia

We have crossed Putin's red line.

AP (“Biden authorizes Ukraine to use US-supplied longer range missiles for deeper strikes inside Russia“):

President Joe Biden has authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied missiles to strike deeper inside Russia, easing limitations on the longer range weapons as Russia deploys thousands of North Korean troops to reinforce its war, according to a U.S. official and three other people familiar with the matter.

The decision allowing Kyiv to use the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMs, for attacks farther inside Russia comes as President Vladimir Putin positions North Korean troops along Ukraine’s northern border to try to reclaim hundreds of miles of territory seized by Ukrainian forces.

Biden’s move also follows the presidential election victory of Donald Trump, who has said he would bring about a swift end to the war and raised uncertainty about whether his administration would continue the United States’ vital military support for Ukraine.

The official and the others knowledgeable about the matter were not authorized to discuss the U.S. decision publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s reaction Sunday was notably restrained.

“Strikes are not made with words,” he said during his nightly video address. “Such things are not announced. The missiles will speak for themselves.”

Zelenskyy and many of his Western supporters have been pressing Biden for months to allow Ukraine to strike military targets deeper inside Russia with Western-supplied missiles, saying the U.S. ban had made it impossible for Ukraine to try to stop Russian attacks on its cities and electrical grids.

Zelenskyy’s statement came shortly after he posted a message of condolence on Telegram following a Russian attack on a nine-story building that killed at least eight people in the northern city of Sumy, 40 kilometers (24 miles) from the border with Russia.

Russia also launched a massive drone and missile attack, described by officials as the largest in recent months, targeting energy infrastructure and killing civilians. The attack came as fears are mounting about Moscow’s intentions to devastate Ukraine’s power generation capacity before the winter.

NYT (“Biden Allows Ukraine to Strike Russia With Long-Range U.S. Missiles“) adds:

The weapons are likely to be initially employed against Russian and North Korean troops in defense of Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region of western Russia, the officials said.

Mr. Biden’s decision is a major change in U.S. policy. The choice has divided his advisers, and his shift comes two months before President-elect Donald J. Trump takes office, having vowed to limit further support for Ukraine.

Allowing the Ukrainians to use the long-range missiles, known as the Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, came in response to Russia’s surprise decision to bring North Korean troops into the fight, officials said.

[…]

While the officials said they do not expect the shift to fundamentally alter the course of the war, one of the goals of the policy change, they said, is to send a message to the North Koreans that their forces are vulnerable and that they should not send more of them.

[…]

Some U.S. officials said they feared that Ukraine’s use of the missiles across the border could prompt President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to retaliate with force against the United States and its coalition partners.

But other U.S. officials said they thought those fears were overblown.

[…]

Mr. Trump has said little about how he would settle the conflict. But Vice President-elect JD Vance has outlined a plan that would allow the Russians to keep the Ukrainian territory that their forces have seized.

The Ukrainians hope that they would be able to trade any Russian territory they hold in Kursk for Ukrainian territory held by Russia in any future negotiations.

If the Russian assault on Ukrainian forces in Kursk succeeds, Kyiv could end up having little to no Russian territory to offer Moscow in a trade.

WaPo (“Biden approves Ukraine’s use of long-range U.S. weapons inside Russia, reversing policy“) adds:

The White House wants to put Ukraine in the best possible place ahead of peace talks that the new U.S. president is expected to spearhead early in his term, U.S. officials said. Even before the election, Biden had committed to surging aid to Ukraine in an effort to cement his legacy on his way out of office.

“President Biden has committed to making sure that every dollar we have at our disposal will be pushed out the door between now and January 20th,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters Wednesday in Brussels, where he was meeting with European counterparts to discuss how to support Ukraine in the wake of Trump’s win.

[…]

U.S. officials have said that their concerns about Russian escalation in response to Western military aid have diminished over time as one weapons system after another has been provided to Ukraine without significant retaliation in response. Ukraine is already using U.S. equipment inside Kursk to attack Russia.

But Putin has been explicit that he considers the use of ATACMS a red line. In September, he declared that a strike by the missiles into Russian territory, which would probably involve U.S. targeting assistance, “changes the very essence, the nature of the conflict,” warning that his country would retaliate.

The Biden administration is in a better position than I am to assess the risks of escalation here. Still, they’re non-zero.

That this rather significant change in policy is happening during the lame duck period between presidential transitions is concerning, especially since the President-Elect has signaled a new direction. That an administration that has been voted out of office still makes foreign policy—potentially including getting the country involved in foreign wars—for more than two months* is a curious aspect of our system of governance.


*Indeed, until the passage of the 20th Amendment in 1933, they had until March 4.

FILED UNDER: Military Affairs, National Security, US Constitution, US Politics, , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Professor of Security Studies. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Kathy says:

    IMO, too little, too late, too much out of desperation.

    5
  2. Tony W says:

    Putin will retaliate?

    Sit down Mr. Putin.

    This is the retaliation for your interference in our country’s affairs.

    To paraphrase the late, great Darth Vader, Pray we don’t retaliate further.

    5
  3. Michael Reynolds says:

    Good for Joe. But yes, too little, too late.

    Putin is not going to retaliate when his stooge is just six weeks from inauguration.

    9
  4. JKB says:

    “President Biden has committed to making sure that every dollar we have at our disposal will be pushed out the door between now and January 20th,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters ….

    The Pentagon/MIC see their cash cow drying up. Keep in mind, the money doesn’t got to Ukraine, it goes to US weapons and munitions manufacturers for stuff to ship to Ukraine. Same with the Israel funding. And if the money dries up because the war is settled so do the kickbacks to Biden, Cheney and those former NatSec officials.

    1
  5. Not the IT Dept. says:

    @JKB: “And if the money dries up because the war is settled so do the kickbacks to Biden, Cheney and those former NatSec officials.”

    Proof? Put up or shut up.

    16
  6. Mister Bluster says:

    @Not the IT Dept.:..Proof?

    You have to wear special glasses to see any alleged “proof” that JKB might offer for his claims. Trump sells those spectacles so you can read what he actually means when posts on “Truth” Social.

    5
  7. JohnSF says:

    @JKB:
    Most of the shipments actually come from exiting stocks, which are then backfilled by orders from industry, or not.
    Are you saying that all US weapons procurement results in “kickbacks” to Biden and various other officials?
    Or that it’s just Ukraine related spending “because reasons”?

    4
  8. Scott says:

    @Not the IT Dept.: @Mister Bluster: @JohnSF: As you probably know, this business of kickback and graft comes right out of the far right fever swamps with the source, of course, going back to the Russian purveyors of disinformation. Zelensky having yachts and Swiss bank accounts are all of the same piece.

    9
  9. Kathy says:

    Every accusation is a confession.

    4
  10. Gustopher says:

    @JohnSF: Biden now has a small stockpile of ATACMS, and other weapons. Let us all pray that he doesn’t let his coked up failson Hunter to launch them.

    4
  11. Michael Reynolds says:

    I wonder how far the Poles are willing to go. They seem pretty fired up and they have three mechanized divisions and a tidy bunch of F-15EXs and Eurofighters, and are starting to receive F-35s. They’d stop any Russian offensive dead in its tracks.

    2
  12. just nutha says:

    @JohnSF:

    Are you saying that all US weapons procurement results in “kickbacks” to Biden and various other officials?

    If he’s a proper leftist from my childhood and young adulthood he is. That may well be the “thoughtful conservative” position in the Bizarro world he lives in now.

    2
  13. Kathy says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    I wonder if they’re building nukes. It’s hard without a nuclear reactor (there’s one for research, but no commercial ones), but not impossible. The Little Boy nuke the US dropped on Hiroshima did not require one (Fat Man and the one tested at Trinity did). So, probably not.

    Poland has a long history of enmity with Russia. For some years, part of it were ruled by the Russian Empire (after several partitions of Poland and Napoleon’s meddling in the region), and on a very heavy handed manner (like prohibiting the use of Polish in schools). And don’t forget Soviet Russia allied with the nazis to invade and partition Poland in 1939. Look up the Katyn Massacre.

    So, I can assure you Poland is very serious about resisting Russia. Even their neofascist previous government enthusiastically supported Ukraine right after the invasion.

    2
  14. Matt says:

    @JohnSF: Indeed we’re basically just clearing out our old stuff by shipping it to Ukraine so we can replace it with new stuff.

    Weapon systems degrade over time in storage so this is a good thing. On top of that we’re also getting a lot of great real world data from all this. What you see in simulations and what you see on the actual battlefield can vary wildly. JKB should be wildly supporting this as we’re buying American and we’re strengthening America in one go.

    9
  15. Rob1 says:

    @Kathy:

    Putin’s violent disregard for sovereignty, has shown the European countries the deterent value of having nukes and ballistic capabilities.

    What are the chances that Putin would have invaded Ukraine if that country had retained functional nukes?

    What are the chances that there have been, or are ongoing secret discussions within certain European ranks (and Ukraine) about acquiring such capability, even in violation of non-proliferation agreements?

    And finally, it may not be necessary to “develop” that weapon technology, as it might be purchased, or “donated.” It is doubtful that such capacity is as “locked down” as we might suppose.

    1
  16. Barry says:

    James, did you not find SCOTUS granting Trump more power and immunity curious?

    Or realizing that Trump can likely shut down Congress until as such time he deems proper?

    1
  17. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Rob1:
    There are quite a few reactors in Eastern European countries which might feel threatened. France and UK have the know how.

    I expect, and sadly hope, we’re about so see some nuclear proliferation. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Poland and god help me, Germany, should start building. France, UK, and other countries that don’t have nuclear devices but do have the know-how and the manufacturing capability should assist, urgently. The various countries could pool resources and speed things up. A Western Common Nuke, and an Eastern Common Nuke.

    Under Trump we will serve Russia’s interests and be an unreliable, even hostile, frenemy to Europe, SK, Taiwan, and Japan.

  18. Gustopher says:

    @Rob1:

    What are the chances that Putin would have invaded Ukraine if that country had retained functional nukes?

    Ukraine never had functional nukes. They never had the launch codes, etc.

    They gave up physical ownership of nukes they couldn’t use, for security agreements that meant nothing. Not a bad trade, nothing for nothing.

    4
  19. Kathy says:

    @Rob1:
    @Michael Reynolds:

    Nukes are half the issue. The other half is what’s euphemistically called “delivery systems.” Meaning long range missiles that can drop a nuke on Mad Vlad’s head within minutes of launch.

    That can be just as hard to develop. Europe has the European Space Agency, which has the know-how and tooling to build rockets, ergo they can make missiles.

    These days, though, I wonder how hard it would be to make a drone large enough to carry small nukes…

    Anyway, all this can take years to develop. The time may be there, because Russia is in no shape to invade another country after Vlad’s misadventures in Ukraine. BTW, that’s the best argument for letting Ukraine join NATO. I’m sure any European country would prefer to fight with them than against them.

  20. Andy says:

    My understanding is that it’s not open season to use ATACMS anywhere in Russia, so it’s not a free hand. And Russia does have the means to retaliate, albeit indirectly. Suspiciously, for example, two undersea data cables in the Baltic were cut last night. While the culprits aren’t known and theoretically could be an accident, the timing is suspicious. Russia and its allies can do a lot of bad, impactful things – like cutting cables – and maintain plausible deniability.

    It’s also important to note that this issue regarding long-range strikes in Russia with US weapons and assistance is whistling past the graveyard in a sense. ATACMs and similar systems aren’t going to win this war for Ukraine, especially considering the US can only make about 500 missiles a year (for comparison, the US used ~450 in the three-week invasion of Iraq in 2003).

    Ukraine’s biggest problem now (and has been for a long time) is manpower. This is due to a number of factors – lots of people have left Ukraine for the EU (which won’t force potential conscripts to return), mobilization is politically unpopular in Ukraine (hence why many want to stay in the EU), and bad Ukrainian demographics mean taking men out of the economy has outsize negative economic effects.

    Along with manpower are all the usual and boring equipment issues which are essential.

    2
  21. Kevin says:

    @JKB: What does “the war is settled” mean to you, exactly? Do you think the US can force the war to be settled? How?

  22. Console says:

    Trump is right for all the wrong reasons. You have to get to peace at some point and peace probably won’t involve a return to the pre war status quo. All we are doing is fueling a war that gets more an more destabilizing and unpredictable the longer it drags on (which is true for all wars). Same thing goes for Israel, but I don’t think Trump and his Saudi masters will allow him to stop giving them weapons.

  23. Kevin says:

    @Console: Peace only happens if both sides want it. Neither side does.

    1
  24. Rob1 says:

    @Kathy:

    Reports say that Ukraine now has a ballistic delivery system.

  25. Rob1 says:

    @Gustopher

    And those warheads couldn’t be repurposed? Ukraine has exhibited technological resourcefulness.

  26. Rob1 says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    Europe is looking like it will be forced by the US political situation into amping its “deterence” capability. Likely Japan and S. Korea as well. Australia’s entry into the club via UK is also possible. Look for an increase in Russian meddling in the culture/affairs of all these countries to forestall those possibilities.

    Far from being the “peace candidate,” Trump may be a catalyst for a new global nuclear arms race.

    2
  27. Rob1 says:

    @Kevin:

    And neither “side” is monolothic.

  28. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Console:
    This war is the best deal in foreign policy since the Louisiana Purchase. At a cost of zero Americans, we have done serious damage to the economic, diplomatic and military power of an adversary. The Russian Army has certainly lost whatever luster it had. Their weapons industry is exposed as second rate. Their economy is hobbled, whatever progress they might have hoped for is lost. The Black Sea fleet is ships in a bottle – a bottle owned increasingly by Turkey. NATO has expanded bringing more Russian territory into direct contact and making the Baltic fleet irrelevant.

    And again: zero US deaths. Nothing but money, which we’re using to replace old gear and upgrade weapons systems. Thanks to Joe Biden we are significantly more powerful vis a vis Russia than we were. And we’ve reminded China that taking Taiwan may not be so easy.

    And now, a treasonous president is going to throw it all away.

    5
  29. Rob1 says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    And now, a treasonous president is going to throw it all away.

    Aided and a abetted by an electorate that has lost its connection to the history of its fathers and grandfathers, even as recent as those lessons may be.

    3
  30. JohnSF says:

    @Gustopher:
    Launch codes, as I have said before, are not magic spells.
    More accurately, usually, warhead arming locks: the US version being termed a “permissive action link.” The more recent sophisticated US versions use various means of prvernting detonation, and tamper-proofing.
    The codes transmitted both enable arming the warhead, and provide verification of authority to launch.
    The earlier US systems were more simple: electro-mechanical locks that locked out the detonation circuits, and in some cases blocked the fission core.
    These are capable of being removed or disabled by an engineer familiar with the design.
    As the production of Soviet warhead locks was in Kharkiv, they likely had access to such expertise.
    Further: some weapons may, like submarine launched ballistic missile warheads, be armed by the officers involved without codes transmitted by higher command.
    UK Trident submarines operate in this way: a secure second-strike weapon designed for retaliation if national command is obliterated is of little use if it requires remote code authority for use.
    See “letters of last resort”

    Beyond all this, some Soviet tactical weapons appear to have had very, very basic locks indeed; for safety than for control.

    The main reasons Ukraine were inclined to give up nuclear weapons were that, firstly, at the time they could see no use-case for them.
    Secondly, maintaining them would have been very expensive even with no other problem; still more when it required the development of a nuclear weapons support infrastructure at huge cost.
    Thirdly, the US, Russia, and others, made it plain that Ukrainian retention would result in economic and diplomatic penalties.
    Fourthly, Ukraine was offered a very attractive price for the warhead material, around $200 million iirc, plus a write off of certain debts to Russia, and transfer of low-enriched uranium for Ukrainian reactors.

  31. JohnSF says:

    @Rob1:
    Repurposing a warhead that is dismantled is a non-trivial exercise.
    Especially if it’s a thermonuclear or a “boosted fission” design.
    For an implosion deign it requires extremely precise engineering of the fission core, the initiator, the explosive lenses etc etc.
    There is a good reason why warheads are tested, unless you are building to a set specification, which Ukraine probably did not, and does not, have.
    You may also need a periodic supply of tritium for core recharge of certain design types, which I doubt Ukraine has.

  32. Rob1 says:

    @JohnSF:

    Hold on. At one point, while in the possession of Ukraine, those warheads were not in a disassembled state. Ukrainians believed that the treaty would protect them and their sovereignty. It did not. My contention (while moot at this point) is, had they retained x- quantity, Putin likely would not have invaded.

    And that contention points to the possibility that, if Ukraine were to now acquire nukes by some means or another, it would have the effect of curtailing Putin’s current ambitions. It would be unlikely that he would engage in “first strike” because of proximity —- not from fallout, but from the real possibility Ukraine could deliver one of those weapons to one of Russia’s population centers.

    As noted previously, recent reports indicate that Ukraine is now producing its own ballistic delivery systems.

  33. dazedandconfused says:

    On the topic of removing the Soviet nukes from Ukraine in the 90s, it should be kept in mind that at that time nobody was sure what kind of state Ukraine might become and at that time was a total mess, as were most of the nations of the USSR. The risk that somebody would sell nuclear materials on the black market to make a buck was real.

    An article on the thinking at that time.

    1
  34. JohnSF says:

    @Rob1:
    Apologies, I was assuming you were referring to Ukraine retaining just the fissionable material.
    (Which I have a vague recollection they suggested at one point during the negotiations)

    If they had retained the warheads intact, I’m fairly sure they could have dealt with any lock-outs.
    Tritium reloads might still be tricky, if needed, though.
    But probability of Russian invasion: very much less.

    Nuclear acquisition is a ticklish business.
    If it becomes evident to a nuclear armed adversary you are trying, it invites prompt response.
    So far, we have been lucky that the major challenges in that regard have met restrained response. (By India re Pakistan, and US re North Korea).
    That is hardly a guarantee though.

    1
  35. Rob1 says:

    @JohnSF:

    There is another “catch” to what I suggested, which occurred to me later. The warheads Ukraine possessed in the early 90s were likely designed in the 80s or even earlier. Their ballistic delivery systems were designed around these warheads’ size, weight etc.

    It’s not likely current Ukrainian ballistic tech is up to those capacities. So it might not be a 1:1 deal. The ever inventive Ukrainians would have had to figure something out. At the same time, merely possessing those warheads would likely serve as a deterent. Putin could never be sure what the resourceful Ukrainians had devised.