You may have been following the war in Ukraine and will identify that it has been a whirlwind of shifting frontlines, political battles, and unexpected alliances. Few things, though, have shaken the war more than the recent decision of the U.S. and European allies to allow Ukraine to launch long-range Western missiles at targets inside Russia. For years, this was the one red line the West would not cross—no more. And the consequences are already unfolding.
For much of the war, Ukraine pleaded with its allies to strike back across the border. The reasoning was simple: Russian bombers, missile sites, and supply hubs inside Russia kept battering Ukrainian cities and forces, all safely out of reach. Washington and London restrained, fearing that such attacks would provoke a vicious cycle or even a nuclear response. President Joe Biden did not want to do anything that would put NATO in direct conflict with a nuclear power.
So what tipped the balance? The answer lies in a mix of new threats, increasing desperation, and geopolitical shifts. Russia massively increased its missile and drone strikes, unleashing historic bursts of flames against Ukrainian targets. Next came two bombshell items: North Korea sought to deploy thousands of troops into Russia’s Kursk region, and Iran began shipping ballistic missiles to Moscow. Suddenly, Western restraint did not seem so much caution, but more like giving Russia a haven to function from.
Biden finally signed off on Ukraine launching American-provided ATACMS missiles—able to hit targets almost 190 miles away—against the Russians around Kursk, U.S. officials say. The sending of foreign troops to Russia was the straw that broke the camel’s back, Poland’s foreign minister labeling the move “a response in the only language Putin understands.” Soon after, the UK and France followed suit, saying they too would allow their long-range missiles to be employed in the same fashion.
Moscow, predictably enough, reacted with indignation. Russian officials threatened that it would be justified to retaliate with a nuclear attack if such raids occurred, even updating their doctrine to reflect that foreign ballistic missile strikes on Russian territory would be a reason to deploy nuclear weapons. The Defense Ministry merely averred that “the use of Western non-nuclear rockets by Ukraine against Russia can prompt a nuclear response.” Washington dismissed this as irresponsible propaganda, pointing out that it saw no actual preparations for nuclear use.
Ukraine, nevertheless, did not wait. In a matter of days, Ukrainian troops launched ATACMS missiles into Russian military installations in Bryansk. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy declined to give specifics, but hinted the missiles would “speak for themselves.” Ukrainian soldiers and experts, though grateful, were unable to hide a feeling of frustration that the action had taken so long. They thought the weapons might have halted Russian advances and saved numerous lives if utilized earlier.
In the US, it became political. Members of Congress accused the government of procrastination and giving Russia an undue refuge. Congressional leaders sent Biden a letter, demanding that he lift all remaining sanctions and arguing that the delay had come at a high cost to Ukraine.
Europe was not silent, either. Germany’s new Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, made waves when he declared that all range restrictions on weapons furnished by the West were now lifted. That opened the door to Ukraine shelling Russian military targets with missiles from Britain, France, Germany, and the U.S.—a dramatic shift for a country that had already declined to send its Taurus cruise missiles at all.
The immediate military effect is self-evident. Russia can no longer afford to assume its command posts, depots, and bombers are secure just across the border. All airbases and logistics hubs hundreds of kilometers behind them are now fair targets for Ukraine. This forces Moscow to alter strategy, lengthen supply chains, and relocate key assets away from the front.
There are, though, limits. Ukraine possesses very few ATACMS and other long-range missiles, and Russia is already starting to pull out key gear beyond reach. Western nations are still debating whether or not to authorize strikes in all of Russia or merely in regions directly engaged in the conflict, such as Kursk. The extent of the impact will depend on both the volume of the missiles that Ukraine will receive and how much independence it enjoys in using them.
The larger message is, however, unambiguous: the West is no longer letting Moscow dictate the terms of escalation. With North Korea and Iran openly backing Russia and with the Kremlin showing no interest in talks, Western policymakers appear to have concluded to push back only at further emboldening aggression. French President Emmanuel Macron captured the attitude when he stated recent Russian assaults prove that “Putin does not want peace and is not ready to negotiate.”
Whether this new freedom for Ukraine will really alter the war’s course—or just be another episode in a sluggish one—is uncertain. What is certain is that Russia’s safe zones are gone, and the price of any given action is higher than ever.
