Questions and Answers: The U.S. Decision to Provide Ukraine With ATACMS

1. Ukraine has never had missiles with such a long range. What does this mean for the resistance against Russia? Can it help?

The ballistic rockets ATACMS (Army TACtical Missile Systems) and similar weapon systems were requested by Kiev from the United States and other partner countries a long time ago.

The high Ukrainian interest in this type of missile has to do with a decisive Achilles’ heel of the Russian occupation forces – the long supply, communication and command routes.

The ATACMS – and similar long-range precision weapons- allow Ukraine to destroy Russian military transport infrastructure, ammunition storages, fuel depots, troop barracks, command centers, etc, with pinpoint accuracy far behind the front line.

Ideally, Russian combat units on the front line can be cut off from supplies, replenishment and communication from the rear – and thereby tactically weakened to such an extent that they have to retreat even without a major Ukrainian attack.

This saves Ukraine losses of soldiers and equipment in costly land offensives.

2. What are potential and strategically sensible targets? Russian supply routes? The Kerch Bridge?

The exact targets will depend on the specific situation on the respective section of the front. Depending on the situation, these may be transportation hubs, troop bases, fire control points, landing sites, refueling stations, etc.

As far as I understand military experts’ comments, the Kerch Bridge is too massive to be quickly destroyed with ATACMS. The German “Taurus” cruise missiles seem to be more suitable for destroying extensive facilities, such as the Kerch Bridge, most of which is – by the way – located on Ukrainian territory.

For this reason, and due to the decisive military-strategic and overall political significance of Crimea for Russia’s war, Kyiv is highly interested in the Taurus system.

3. For a long time, there was reluctance to send missiles with this range. How did this change of heart come about?

Perhaps until 2023, there was an illusion that Ukraine would be able to drive Russian troops from its territory away without modern Western long-range weapons – and with its own outdated equipment. For a moment in 2022, it actually looked as if this may be possible.

At that time, Ukraine liberated around half of the Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia in the first weeks of the war, in a hand’s stroke, and managed to do so with its largely outdated weapons.

In the meantime, however, the situation has changed. Some Western partners now seem to realize that restrictions on arms supplies only prolong the war. Russia’s genocidal behavior and rhetoric has also continued and intensified since 2022.

As a result, the seemingly moderate arguments of the first two years of the war are losing their political sense and moral legitimacy, even for many lay observers.

It remains to be hoped that West European and, in particular, German decision-makers will also draw appropriate conclusions regarding issues such as the delivery of fighter aircraft and Taurus cruise missiles.