Ukraine’s Use of US-Supplied Atacms Missiles to Target Russia: An Overview

For the first time, Ukraine has deployed longer-range missiles provided by the US against a target within Russian borders. Previously, Washington had prohibited the use of Atacms missiles for attacks on Russian territory, citing concerns about escalating the conflict. However, the US has altered this position in recent days. Below is information regarding the Atacms missile system. For over a year, Ukraine has been employing Atacms against Russian targets located in occupied Ukrainian areas. American weaponry and equipment are already in use within Russia’s Kursk border region. Nevertheless, the US had not previously permitted Kyiv to deploy Atacms within Russia itself, a policy that has now changed. Ukraine had contended that the restriction on using such armaments within Russia was akin to being compelled to fight at a disadvantage. The shift in policy is reportedly a reaction to the recent deployment of North Korean forces to bolster Russia in the Kursk region, an area where Ukraine has held territory since August. Furthermore, the impending return of Donald Trump to the White House is generating apprehension regarding the continuity of US assistance to Ukraine, and President Biden seemingly aims to provide maximum aid during his remaining tenure. The rationale suggests that bolstering Ukraine’s military capabilities could afford it an advantage in prospective peace negotiations. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has not yet confirmed this development. However, he stated on Sunday: “Strikes are not made with words … The missiles will speak for themselves.” The Army Tactical Missile System is a ballistic missile designed for surface-to-surface engagement, with a range of up to 300km (186 miles). This extended reach is especially significant for Ukraine. Manufactured by Lockheed Martin, a defense company, these missiles are launched from either the tracked M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) or the wheeled M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (Himars). Each missile carries an approximate cost of $1.5m (£1.2m). Atacms (pronounced “attack-‘ems”) utilize solid rocket propellant and traverse a ballistic trajectory into the atmosphere before descending at considerable speed and a steep angle, which complicates interception efforts. These missiles can be configured with two distinct types of warheads. One variant is a cluster warhead containing hundreds of bomblets, engineered to neutralize lightly armored units across an expansive area. Potential targets include stationary aircraft, air defense systems, and troop formations. While effective, cluster warheads carry the inherent danger of leaving behind unexploded ordnance, which presents a hazard long after hostilities cease. The second type is a single warhead, specifically a 225kg high explosive version intended for the destruction of fortified installations and substantial structures. Atacms have existed for several decades, with their initial deployment occurring during the 1991 Gulf War. The US Army is in the process of replacing them with the Precision Strike Missile, a next-generation weapon that is faster, more slender, and boasts a range of up to 500km. There is no indication that Ukraine will receive these newer missiles. According to Moscow’s ministry of defense, Ukraine initially employed the missiles in an attack on Russia’s Bryansk region on Tuesday, merely one day after obtaining authorization from US officials. The ministry reported that five missiles were intercepted and one sustained damage, with its debris igniting a fire at a military installation in the area. The strike on Tuesday marked the inaugural instance of these long-range missiles being utilized against Russia’s internationally recognized territory, following Washington’s indication that Ukraine had been granted permission. Russia has pledged to “react accordingly.” Initially, it was anticipated that Ukraine would target locations within Russia’s Kursk region, an area where Ukrainian forces control more than 1,000 sq km of land. Both Ukrainian and US officials foresee a counter-offensive by Russian and North Korean forces aimed at reclaiming territory in Kursk. Ukraine might deploy Atacms to defend against this assault, focusing on Russian positions such as military bases, infrastructure, and ammunition depots. The provision of these missiles is unlikely to be sufficient to alter the overall course of the conflict. Russian military assets, including aircraft, have already been relocated to airfields deeper within Russia in anticipation of such a policy change. Nevertheless, withdrawing equipment further from the front lines could complicate operations for Russian forces by extending supply routes and increasing the response time for air support. These armaments could provide Ukraine with a certain advantage, particularly as Russian forces have been making territorial gains in the eastern part of the country and morale is reportedly low. An anonymous Western diplomat in Kyiv, speaking to the BBC due to the sensitive nature of the topic, commented: “I don’t think it will be decisive.” The diplomat added, “However, it’s an overdue symbolic decision to raise the stakes and demonstrate military support to Ukraine.” They concluded, “It can raise the war cost for Russia.” Evelyn Farkas, who previously held the position of deputy assistant secretary of defense during the Obama administration, raised concerns regarding the quantity of ammunition that will be supplied. She stated: “The question is, of course, how many missiles do they have? We have heard that the Pentagon has warned there aren’t that many of these missiles that they can make available to Ukraine.” Farkas further suggested that the Atacms could generate a “positive psychological impact” in Ukraine if deployed against targets such as the Kerch Bridge, which connects Crimea with mainland Russia. The US authorization had an additional consequence: Ukraine began using Storm Shadow missiles within Russia. The Storm Shadow is a Franco-British long-range cruise missile that possesses capabilities comparable to the American Atacms. This permission for Storm Shadow use seemingly followed within days of the US announcement. On 20 November, Ukraine launched Storm Shadow missiles into Russia for the first time. For several months, the Biden administration had declined to authorize Ukraine to strike Russia with long-range missiles, apprehensive of an escalation of the conflict. Vladimir Putin has issued warnings against permitting Western armaments to be used for strikes on Russia, asserting that Moscow would interpret such actions as the “direct participation” of Nato countries in the conflict in Ukraine. In September, Putin stated: “It would substantially change the very essence, the nature of the conflict,” adding, “This will mean that Nato countries, the USA and European states, are fighting with Russia.” Russia has previously established “red lines.” Several of these, such as the provision of modern battle tanks and fighter jets to Ukraine, have subsequently been breached without provoking a direct war between Russia and Nato. Kurt Volker, a former US ambassador to Nato, commented: “By restricting the range of Ukraine’s use of American weapons, the US was unjustifiably imposing unilateral restrictions on Ukraine’s self-defence.” He further remarked that the choice to constrain Atacms usage was “completely arbitrary and done out of fear of ‘provoking’ Russia.” He also stated: “However, it is a mistake to make such a change public, as it gives Russia advance notice of potential Ukrainian strikes.” This development occurs merely two months prior to Donald Trump’s return to the White House. He has previously declared his intention to rapidly conclude the war in Ukraine, though without detailing his methodology, and could potentially revoke the authorization for missile use upon assuming office. President-elect Trump has not yet indicated whether he will maintain this policy, but several of his closest associates have already voiced criticism. Donald Trump Jr, the son of Trump, posted on social media: “The military industrial complex seems to want to make sure they get World War Three going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives.” Numerous high-ranking officials associated with Trump, including Vice President-elect JD Vance, contend that the US should cease providing military assistance to Ukraine. However, other individuals within the forthcoming Trump administration hold a contrasting perspective. National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, for instance, has proposed that the US could expedite weapons shipments to Ukraine to compel Russia into negotiations. The president-elect’s ultimate decision remains uncertain. Nonetheless, many in Ukraine are apprehensive that he will halt weapons deliveries, including Atacms. Oleksiy Goncharenko, a Ukrainian MP, informed the BBC: “We are worried. We hope that [Trump] will not reverse [the decision].” Additional reporting was provided by Tom McArthur. Copyright 2024 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC bears no responsibility for the content found on external websites. Information regarding our external linking policy is available.