IRIA News

5 minute read

The Biden administration has given Ukraine the green light to use U.S.-supplied weapons for long-range strikes deep into Russian territory, U.S. officials and sources disclosed on November 18, 2024. This decision is a significant reversal in Washington’s stance on the Ukraine-Russia conflict and has already drawn sharp reactions from Moscow and beyond.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has long called for such measures, arguing they are critical to counter Russia’s military advances. “The missiles will speak for themselves,” Zelenskyy remarked in his evening address, emphasizing the importance of action over rhetoric.

The move is being described by many as a response to the evolving dynamics of the war. The decision from the Biden administration comes just two months before President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20.

The decision also follows battleground developments, including Russia’s reported deployment of over 10,000 North Korean soldiers to bolster its forces. These troops are believed to be engaging in combat operations in the Kursk region, escalating the stakes in the conflict.

While details of Ukraine’s first planned long-range attacks remain under wraps due to operational security, it is widely believed that the strikes will involve ATACMS rockets, which boast a range of up to 306 kilometers. These missiles could allow Ukraine to target Russian military installations far from its borders for the first time in the conflict.

Ukraine may use ATACMS to defend against the assault, targeting Russian positions including military bases, infrastructure, and ammunition storage. However, the current of the missiles would not be enough to turn the tide of the war. Russian military equipment, such as jets, has already been moved to airfields further inside Russia in anticipation of such a decision.

Escalation risks

The strategic shift comes at a time when Russian forces are advancing at their fastest pace since 2022, despite suffering heavy casualties. Ukrainian forces, meanwhile, have struggled with personnel shortages and have lost some ground, including areas they captured during a brief incursion into Kursk in August.

In Washington, the decision has sparked debate. Some congressional Republicans, including Representative Mike Turner, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, called the move overdue. “This first step will put pressure on Vladimir Putin as President-elect Trump returns to the White House and works to end this war,” Turner stated.

However, Trump’s stance on the issue remains uncertain. While he has criticized the scale of U.S. aid to Ukraine, his specific plans for addressing the conflict remain unclear. Richard Grenell, one of Trump’s close foreign policy advisers, criticized Biden’s decision, accusing the outgoing administration of “escalating the wars before he leaves office.

While Kyiv’s allies have been supportive of Ukraine’s defense, many have imposed restrictions on the use of supplied weapons within Russian territory. These measures aim to prevent retaliation that could draw NATO countries into the war or provoke a nuclear conflict.

Despite these concerns, Biden’s decision reflects the urgency of countering Russia’s momentum. Since Trump’s electoral victory on November 5, the outgoing administration has focused on equipping Ukraine to either fight effectively next year or negotiate peace from a position of strength.

Reactions from Moscow and beyond

The Kremlin has not issued an official response but Russian officials have already expressed dire concerns and have previously warned that loosening restrictions on Ukraine’s use of U.S. weapons would be viewed as a severe escalation.

Vladimir Dzhabarov, first deputy head of Russia’s international affairs committee, cautioned that the decision could spark “World War Three.” Andrei Klishas, a senior member of Russia’s Federation Council, also warned that such escalation could result in “the Ukrainian statehood in complete ruins by morning.”

Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, framed the policy change as a direct response to the entry of North Korean troops into the conflict and Russia’s continued missile strikes. “President Biden responded in a language that V. Putin understands, by removing restrictions on Ukraine’s use of Western missiles,” Sikorski said.

Russian strikes in Ukraine

Continuing with the recent events, Russia launched its largest airstrike on Ukraine in nearly three months, firing 120 missiles and 90 drones on Sunday. The attacks killed at least seven people, caused widespread power outages, and inflicted “severe damage to Ukraine’s energy system,” according to Maxim Timchenko, CEO of DTEK, the country’s largest private energy firm.

Residents in Kyiv sheltered in metro stations as air defenses intercepted 104 missiles and 42 drones, with another 41 disappearing from radar, according to the Ukrainian defense ministry. Regions including Lviv, Odesa, and Dnipropetrovsk, reported damage to critical infrastructure, with emergency repairs underway.

Russia’s defense ministry claimed the strikes targeted energy facilities supplying Ukraine’s military-industrial complex. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated, “The enemy’s target was our energy infrastructure across Ukraine.”

The only way to truly stop this terror is to eliminate Russia’s ability to launch attacks. And this is absolutely realistic.

Today, Russia struck Odesa with a missile—deliberately targeting a residential area. As a result of this barbaric act, innocent lives were lost, and many… pic.twitter.com/5Isl7F3hxV

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) November 18, 2024

Meanwhile, Moldova reported airspace violations, and NATO member Poland scrambled its air force in response. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk criticized calls for diplomacy, as he took a jab at the recent telephonic conversation between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Russian President Putin, “The attack last night, has proved that telephone diplomacy cannot replace real support from the whole West for Ukraine.”