President Biden may allow Ukraine to use US supplied long range weapons to hit deep inside Russia. Ukraine had requested the US for this to hit targets located deep inside Russian soil. Previously, such demands were rejected.

This long-discussed issue is reaching a critical point on Friday with the inaugural visit to the White House by Britain’s new Prime Minister, Keir Starmer.

The UK has already expressed its interest in allowing Ukraine to deploy its “Storm Shadow” missiles to hit distant Russian military positions, but it seeks clear approval from Biden to ensure a unified approach with the US and France, which also produces a similar missile. While Biden has yet to make a decision, he is expected to discuss the matter with Starmer on Friday.

If Biden grants the request, it could bolster Ukraine’s defense efforts following its recent advances into Russian-held areas like the Kursk region. However, Biden remains cautious about permitting Ukraine to use American weaponry in this manner, partly due to intelligence warnings that Russia might retaliate by supporting Iran in targeting US forces in the Middle East.

On Thursday, White House officials emphasized that no immediate decision had been made regarding the use of American-made Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS). Nevertheless, President Biden has suggested that a relaxation of current restrictions may be forthcoming. When asked on Tuesday if he was prepared to address President Volodymyr Zelensky’s persistent appeals, Biden responded, “We are working that out right now.”

If Biden authorizes the British and French to proceed with their missile plans and, in the coming weeks, approves the use of ATACMS, it could represent a significant escalation in military support for Ukraine.

Meanwhile, some Republican Senate leaders, notably Mitch McConnell, have been advocating for a more robust response, diverging from former President Donald J. Trump, who declined during a recent debate to explicitly support Ukraine’s victory or demand Russia’s withdrawal from the roughly 20 percent of Ukraine it has occupied since the conflict began.

On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a pointed warning to the West, stating that Ukrainians cannot operate the long-range missiles without Western technical assistance and satellite guidance. According to Kremlin reports, Putin claimed, “This would mean that NATO countries — including the United States and European nations — are at war with Russia. Should this occur, we will respond appropriately to the new threats posed.”

For the US, gauging the validity of Putin’s warnings has been challenging. Over the nearly 31 months of the conflict, Biden has consistently been wary of crossing any red lines set by Putin. Initially hesitant to supply Ukraine with HIMARS artillery, then M1 Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter jets, and longer-range ATACMS, the administration gradually relaxed its restrictions as it became apparent that Putin was less inclined to escalate than anticipated.

In the spring, Biden first permitted Ukraine to target Russian artillery and other positions just across the border to prevent Russian forces from using the area as a base to attack Ukrainian cities near Kharkiv. This permission was later expanded, though officials remain concerned about the implications of using American ATACMS to strike deeper into Russia.

US intelligence briefings have raised concerns about the direct involvement of American technology in Ukraine’s military operations near Kursk. There are warnings that Russia might assist Iran in targeting US forces in the Middle East, a situation further complicated by recent accusations that Iran has started supplying missiles to Russia, which Tehran has denied.

In recent meetings with high-level administration officials, Ukrainian representatives have contended that their occupation of territory within Russia proves that the U.S. concerns about crossing Russian red lines are exaggerated. They argue that the U.S. should permit Ukraine to use American weaponry to target deeper into Russian territory.

After one such meeting in Kyiv on Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken informed the press that he, along with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and British Foreign Minister David Lammy, had “discussed long-range strikes among other topics.”

Blinken noted that he would report back to President Biden and that Lammy would brief the British Prime Minister. The two leaders are scheduled to meet in Washington soon to discuss ongoing support for Ukraine.

Many military analysts and former U.S. officials are perplexed by the administration’s reluctance, especially given that Ukraine’s actions in Kursk have not provoked a heightened response from Moscow.

In a letter to the administration this week, 17 former ambassadors and generals asserted that lifting restrictions on Western weapons would not lead to Russian escalation. They pointed out that Ukraine is already using these weapons on territories Russia claims as its own, including Crimea and Kursk, without provoking a significant Russian reaction.

Two weeks ago, senior Ukrainian officials presented a similar case to Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III at the Pentagon. Ukraine’s new defense minister, Rustem Umerov, argued that the incursion into Kursk demonstrated that Russia’s declared red lines were mere bluffs intended to deter Western support for Ukraine.

According to two officials, Umerov contended that Ukraine’s ability to invade and even occupy Russian territory without triggering a major global conflict disproves the notion of Russia’s red lines as genuine.

However, American officials believe it is premature to draw such conclusions, noting that President Putin has numerous potential responses. During their discussion, Secretary Austin questioned Umerov about which Russian sites Ukraine intended to target, emphasizing the importance of focusing on military targets like airfields rather than civilian infrastructure such as power plants. Austin also inquired about the strategic goals behind such targeting.

Austin remains convinced that using U.S. weapons for long-range strikes into Russia is unlikely to shift the war’s dynamics, partly due to the insufficient number of ATACMS and similar missiles from Britain and France to sustain extensive attacks.

At a U.S. air base in Ramstein, Germany, last Friday, Austin added that easing restrictions on Ukraine’s use of ATACMS would not address one of the major challenges faced by Ukrainian cities and forces: glide bombs launched from Russian aircraft well beyond ATACMS range.

The U.S. has provided Ukraine with several hundred ATACMS, but supplies are dwindling. Officials worry they might not have enough to effectively target a broad array of Russian assets.

Umerov countered during the Pentagon meeting that, even if ATACMS are not a game-changer, they could still be effectively used to strike Russian targets and disrupt Russian logistics.

Seth G. Jones from the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that such strikes could weaken Russian military capabilities. He pointed out that Russia already uses weapons and components from Iran, China, and North Korea against Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Pentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Patrick S. Ryder warned reporters on Tuesday that Iran’s recent shipment of short-range ballistic missiles to Russia sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to more such deliveries. Ryder suggested that if Iran continues supplying these missiles, it could become a regular source of capability for Russia in the future.

Shahzad Masood Roomi

Shahzad Masood Roomi is founding member and, editor security and geopolitics at GCW. He is IT graduate and has more than 10 years experience of being a  geopolitics and defense affairs analyst. He focuses on IR, geopolitics, strategic studies, maritime security, cybersecurity issues, military aviation, history and geography. His work has published in national and international media outlets.