President Joe Biden has reportedly authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to strike Russian territory. The decision marks the first time the United States has approved such action, signaling a notable escalation in its support for Kyiv as the war in Ukraine approaches its third year.
The reported approval comes as Biden’s administration enters its final weeks, with President-elect Donald Trump set to assume office on January 20. Trump has expressed skepticism about continued U.S. support for Ukraine, claiming during his campaign that he would broker an end to the war before taking office, though he has provided no details on how he would achieve this.
Biden’s decision to authorize Ukraine’s use of ATACMS—a long-range missile system capable of striking deep into Russian territory—responds to intensifying challenges on the battlefield. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has long advocated for these weapons to counter Russia’s ongoing military advances and relentless airstrikes.
Recent reports suggest the missiles may initially target Russian military positions bolstered by North Korean troops. Thousands of North Korean soldiers have reportedly been deployed to Russia’s southern Kursk region near the Ukrainian border, assisting Moscow’s forces after Kyiv launched an unprecedented cross-border offensive in August.
The decision to permit strikes inside Russia represents a calculated risk for Biden. While it underscores U.S. commitment to Ukraine, it also raises the specter of broader conflict. Critics, including Trump, have warned that such actions risk escalating the war into a global confrontation, with Trump accusing the Biden administration of “playing with World War III.”
Russia has yet to respond publicly to the reports, but Kremlin officials have previously characterized U.S. military support for Ukraine as a direct provocation. The introduction of ATACMS to Ukraine’s arsenal would likely provoke a sharp response from Moscow, potentially heightening tensions further.
Trump’s election victory adds an element of uncertainty to U.S. foreign policy. During the campaign, Trump avoided taking a definitive stance on whether he supports Ukraine’s victory, instead emphasizing the war’s devastating human toll. His claims that millions have been killed in the conflict—exceeding verified estimates—reflect his focus on the war’s cost rather than its strategic implications.
Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost to Trump in the November 5 election, argued that his approach would embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin. “If Trump had been president during the invasion, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe,” Harris said during their September debate.
The U.S. electorate, however, appears increasingly weary of the war. Public opinion surveys suggest that domestic concerns, such as inflation and immigration, have overshadowed foreign policy issues in voters’ minds. Trump’s decisive wins in key battleground states reflect this shift in priorities, potentially influencing the incoming administration’s approach to the conflict.
On the global stage, the Biden administration’s decision to escalate support for Ukraine could complicate diplomatic efforts. Allies in Europe remain deeply invested in Ukraine’s sovereignty, while adversaries like North Korea and Iran are increasingly drawn into the conflict, aligning with Russia.
As the Biden administration concludes its tenure, the reported authorization of long-range missile use signals a determination to strengthen Ukraine’s position in its war against Russia. However, with Trump’s inauguration looming, the future of U.S. policy remains uncertain. Trump has promised to prioritize ending the conflict, but his lack of concrete proposals leaves key questions unanswered.
For now, Biden’s decision reflects an administration unwilling to cede ground in the face of Russian aggression, even as it prepares to hand over the reins of power. Whether this strategy sets the stage for resolution or escalation will likely depend on the actions of both Ukraine and Russia—and the incoming U.S. administration’s ability to navigate an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape.
