“It wouldn’t affect the war enough to make it worthwhile,” President Joe Biden declared, reinforcing the White House’s resistance to allowing Ukraine to unleash ATACMS missiles on Russian soil. As Russian airbases rain destruction on Ukraine from beyond the reach of Kyiv’s current arsenal, the administration insists: letting Ukraine hit back with long-range strikes just isn’t worth the risk.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin echoed this stance in a candid interview, revealing that Russian forces have cleverly moved most of their aircraft outside ATACMS range. Sure, Ukraine’s drones have hit deep inside Russia, but Austin points out they’re “highly effective” without crossing a dangerous line into full missile warfare. Still, it’s hard to ignore the frustration. As Ukrainians beg for more firepower, critics are asking: Why hold back when Russian bombers are free to target Ukrainian civilians with impunity?
The ATACMS missiles, prized for their precision and devastating cluster warheads, can strike up to 300 kilometers—easily within reach of key Russian airbases. Yet, the White House believes these attacks won’t alter the war’s course. And let’s face it—there’s the elephant in the room: Russia’s nuclear arsenal. A dramatic escalation could push Putin into a corner no one wants to see.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Zelensky has ramped up his calls for long-range weapons, arguing that they could prevent the relentless bombing of Ukrainian homes. But with Biden firmly standing his ground, Ukraine may have to keep relying on drones to wage their David-versus-Goliath fight.
Still, critics remain vocal, questioning if this cautious approach is merely prolonging the war and giving Russia room to regroup. With tension building in Washington, one thing is clear: this is a gamble that could redefine global conflict. Will the U.S. strategy to limit Ukrainian firepower backfire, or is it the only way to keep the world from sliding into chaos? Only time will tell.
