These long-range, precision-guided missiles have equipped Kyiv to strike far beyond front lines—attacking Russian military targets not only within occupied Ukrainian land but now, for the first time, deep within Russia.
Washington’s approval of the strikes on Russian territory represented a dramatic policy change. In most of the conflicts, U.S. policymakers abstained from this move, apprehensive that such strikes might lead to risky escalation.
That equation changed after news emerged of North Korean soldiers fighting in conjunction with Russian forces in the Kursk province and amid increasing doubt regarding whether future American political power would continue to provide military support to Kyiv. As the BBC reported, the move was widely seen as aimed at bolstering Ukraine’s position before any potential shift in US policy.
Ukraine did not delay in testing its new range. Its initial confirmed ATACMS attack within Russia struck a missile storage facility near Karachev in the Bryansk province—about 70 miles from the border. The explosion obliterated huge caches of artillery shells, anti-aircraft missiles, and other ordnance, with drones said to have assisted the mission. Russia said most of the missiles were shot down, but video evidence indicated the facility took serious damage.
The attacks didn’t end there. Ukrainian troops subsequently struck Russian military targets in the Kursk region, including a battalion of S-400 surface-to-air missiles around Lotarevka—Russia’s most sophisticated air defense system and its response to the U.S. Patriot.
The Russian Defense Ministry acknowledged that two out of five incoming missiles penetrated the defenses, destroying a radar and causing casualties. Another attack was made on the Khalino air base, although Moscow played down the extent of the damage. For the Kremlin to publicly acknowledge any losses at all is unusual—and telling.
In Crimea, ATACMS have been equally disconcerting. A minimum of ten were employed to strike S-300 and S-400 sites throughout the peninsula, destroying or knocking out systems and killing operators. Independent satellite imagery verified the damage, including at the strategically significant node of Dzhankoy. The strikes compelled Russia to relocate its air defenses further from the front line, making it more difficult to resupply them and leaving some less defended.
Russia’s reply of punches has been both verbal and artillery. On the ground, it has heightened missile and drone strikes against Ukrainian cities, targeting energy infrastructure—a campaign Amnesty International has dubbed a war crime for targeting civilian essentials deliberately.
Politically, the Kremlin has cranked up its nuclear threats. Spokesman Dmitry Peskov cautioned that NATO-supplied missile attacks on Russian soil might qualify under Moscow’s new doctrine as nuclear retaliation targets, which now include attacks by non-nuclear nations supported by nuclear powers.
Strategically, ATACMS have disrupted Russia’s feeling of security. With a range of 300 kilometers, they place once “safe” targets—airfields, command centers, supply depots—firmly within reach. This has caused Moscow to spread equipment, push aircraft further into its own country, and increase air defenses. For Ukraine, the payoff on the battlefield is obvious: interdicting logistics, weakening defenses, and boosting morale at a time when combat in the east is particularly fierce.
Nevertheless, Western analysts warn against hyping the missiles’ effect too much. Ukraine’s ATACMS supply is limited, and Russia is already reshaping its tactics. The missiles will not determine the war by themselves, and U.S. political shifts can restrict future shipments.
Despite that, their deployment has redefined the limits of this war. The introduction of ATACMS demonstrated how a single change in military policy can remake strategy, change calculations of risk, and introduce new unpredictability into a conflict already anything but predictable.
More related images you may be interested in:
