Can US long-range missiles change the course of Russia-Ukraine conflict?

On November 17, the Biden administration made a significant policy shift, granting Ukraine permission to target Russian territory using US-supplied long-range missiles.

The decision entails permission to utilise Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), weapons previously withheld due to concerns over escalating the conflict with Moscow.

US officials said the aim was to send a message to North Korea, amid reports that Russia has enlisted over 15,000 North Korean troops to bolster its efforts in Ukraine.

Ukraine is expected to use the missiles to strike Russian and North Korean troops, particularly in Russia’s Kursk region, where Kiev's forces have gained control of over 1,000 square kilometres.

However, the limited supply of missiles is unlikely to be a game-changer, according to experts.

“We don’t know how many rockets will be made available to Ukraine. It had previously been stated that the number was limited, and that was cited as a reason for not supplying them earlier to Ukraine because there's just simply not enough,” Peter Zalmayev, the director of the Eurasia Democracy Initiative, tells TRT World.

“And so the effectiveness of this is very much in doubt.”

Putin has so far remained publicly silent on the latest developments, though he previously warned that the deployment of long-range missiles to strike Russian territory could be interpreted as West's direct participation in the conflict.

“This will mean that NATO countries, the US and European states, are fighting with Russia,” Putin said in September.

The Russian president suggested that the scenario would prompt adjustments to Moscow’s nuclear doctrine, which outlines the conditions under which the Kremlin would resort to nuclear weapons.

“Russia will also consider the possibility of using nuclear weapons when receiving reliable information about a massive launch of means of aerospace attack and their crossing of our state border,” Putin said.

The decision runs the risk of “opening another front on Ukrainian territory,” according to Stefan Wolff, a professor of international security at the University of Birmingham.

“While it is unlikely that Putin would go directly after NATO countries now, Russia most likely has the capability to exact a high price on Ukraine, potentially even pre-emptively, before Kiev can land any blows”, he says.

“Russian troops and equipment deployed in Kursk could simply be used to push further into Ukraine once Ukrainian forces were driven out of Russian territory.”

The decision comes two months before President-elect Donald J. Trump takes office, which might suggest that Biden is signalling to Trump and his supporters the importance of maintaining strong ties with allies, amid expectations that the incoming president-elect may abandon such policies.

Following the latest move, Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., accused the Biden administration of attempting to undermine the incoming administration.

“The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives,” he wrote on social media.

Whether or not Donald Trump, who has previously criticised the scale of US military aid to Ukraine, will seek to reverse the decision is anybody’s guess.

“I don’t think that Trump will repudiate that,” Zalmayev tells TRT World. “That will be another sort of ammunition for him to say that Biden's policies have failed.”

Russian officials have condemned the policy change, with a prominent lawmaker calling it “a very big step towards the start of World War Three,” as reported by the TASS state news agency.

Washington’s earlier reluctance to authorise the use of ATACMS stemmed from fears of escalating the war.

But with the conflict entering a new and uncertain phase, the administration’s calculus appears to have shifted in response to growing pressures on multiple fronts.

“What is clear is that after 1,000 days of gruelling war, allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory with US weapons now is too little and too late for a military victory,” Wolff says.

“It may, however, be just enough to avoid a humiliating defeat at a negotiation table chaired by Trump.”