Kyiv has been enabled by these long-range, precision-guided missiles to hit targets way beyond the front lines—hitting the Russian military not only inside the areas occupied by Ukraine but also for the very first time, deep inside Russia.
A radical shift in policy was signaled by the green light from Washington for the attacks on the Russian land. Such a decision was, however, largely avoided by U.S. decision-makers in most other wars, who were concerned about possible dangerous escalations that could be triggered by such strikes.
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 deliberately targeting civilian essentials.
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.
Militarily, their use has undermined the feeling of those in Russia that everything will be alright. Within 300 kilometers range, what used to be “safe” haunts-airfields, command centers, supply depots-are at your fingertips now. Moscow has reacted by redistributing the equipment, moving the planes deep inside their territory, and installing more air defenses. The war in Ukraine is raging with ATACMS turning the tide: they are cutting the enemy off from their supply routes, making their defensive lines weaker, and raising morale, which is very important at such a period of hard fighting in the east.
Still, some Western analysts caution against overrating the missile’s role. Firstly, the ATACMS supply to Ukraine is limited. Secondly, the Russian command is already adapting its tactics to the changed situation. Apart from that, missiles alone will not be able to end the war; also, changes in U.S. politics may affect future deliveries.
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.