The outgoing Biden Administration’s authorisation for Ukraine to carry out long-range missile strikes against Russian targets using US weaponry signals a significant escalation in the on-going conflict. However, this decision, while tactically impactful, raises questions about its timing and broader strategic relevance. The long delays in providing Ukraine with the authorisation it has sought may ultimately blunt their effectiveness in altering the course of the war. For Ukraine, the ability to strike deeper into Russian territory is both a tactical necessity and a psychological boost.

By targeting military airbases and logistical hubs, Ukraine could disrupt Russian operations, particularly in regions like Kursk, where a Ukrainian foothold has proven critical. This could bolster Kyiv’s defences and provide leverage in future negotiations. However, the limited availability of advanced missiles, combined with Russia’s fortified defences, could minimise the long-term impact of this policy shift. Throughout the conflict, the hesitancy of Western nations to provide decisive support in a timely manner has been a recurring theme. Whether it was the delay in approving tanks, planes, or long-range missiles, these pauses have consistently allowed Russia to regroup and adapt. This pattern has left Ukraine playing catch-up, unable to seize opportunities to regain the strategic advantage. The authorisation of long-range strikes, while valuable, fits into this troubling trend. The potential impact of these weapons on the battlefield is constrained by logistical and political realities.

Advertisement

Russia has already moved key assets beyond the range of many Western-supplied missiles. Additionally, concerns about escalation have limited the scope and scale of these deliveries. These limitations mean that while Ukraine may see tactical gains, such as defending its position in Kursk, the strikes are unlikely to reverse Russia’s broader advances in eastern and southern Ukraine. Compounding these challenges is the looming political uncertainty in the United States. With a change in administration imminent, Ukraine faces the risk of a significant shift in US policy. A new administration less committed to supporting Kyiv could curtail the very aid that makes long-range strikes possible. Such uncertainty underscores the fragile nature of Ukraine’s position and the urgency of achieving tangible gains before the political winds change. The authorisation of long-range strikes represents a step forward but not a game changer. The effectiveness of these strikes will depend on Kyiv’s ability to execute them strategically, the availability of sufficient missile stockpiles, and continued Western support.

While the decision is welcome, its delayed implementation may have squandered its potential to be a decisive factor. Ultimately, the authorisation serves as a reminder that wars are not won by half measures or hesitant policies. Ukraine’s allies must recognise that timeliness and decisiveness are as crucial as the weapons themselves. If the West truly seeks to aid Ukraine, future decisions must prioritise urgency over caution, ensuring that support arrives not just in time to sustain the fight, but to shape its outcome