 "In this image provided by the US Army, Sgt Ian Ketterling, gunner for Alpha Battery, 1st Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, 17th Field Artillery Brigade, prepares the crane for loading the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) on to the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) in Queensland, Australia. AP")
Russia has claimed that Ukraine has used long-range missiles supplied by America inside its territory.
The missiles, known as Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), were shipped from the United States to Ukraine in October 2023.
Kyiv reportedly used the missiles after US President Joe Biden gave the go-ahead to hit military targets inside Russia.
The reported use of ATACMS missiles came on the Ukraine war’s 1,000th day.
The development comes after months of Ukraine pushing the US to allow it to use the missiles to hit Russia.
It also comes ahead of Biden preparing to hand over power to President-elect Donald Trump in January.
But what do we know about the missiles? And what happens next?
Let’s take a closer look:
What do we know about ATACMS?
The ATACMS, built by Lockheed Martin, is one of the US’ most deadly missiles.
According to the manufacturer’s website, it is a long-range guided missile.
It is a conventional surface-to-surface artillery weapon.
As per NDTV, these missiles were developed by America in the 1980s in order to target the Soviet Union.
As per Al Jazeera, ATACMS missiles fly high into the atmosphere where they gain speed and smash into their targets.
Air defence systems thus have a hard time stopping them.
ATACMS missiles can hit targets well beyond the range of existing army cannons, rockets and other missiles.
Its biggest strengths are the long-range of attack, ability to fire cluster munitions, and the weapon system’s mobility.
ATACMS missiles are fired from the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) and M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) platforms.
Both of these launching systems are a highly mobile automatic systems.
Reloading the HIMARS takes only a couple of minutes, making it ideal for “shoot and scoot” missions.
The MLRS can fire 12 surface-to-surface missiles in less than a minute.
There are two different versions of the ATACMS – the midrange and the long-range.
The mid-range one, known as Block 1, has a range of 165 kilometres.
Ukraine was given these systems last year. Kyiv used them to hit targets in October.
However, it is the long-range version, known as ATACMS Block 1A, that is of interest to us.
These have a maximum range of 300 kilometres – depending on the type of munitions the missiles are carrying.
If it is carrying just one warhead, which can weigh up 160 kilograms, its range is shortened to around 270 kilometres.
However, if it is equipped with submunition, or cluster munitions, it can hit targets around 300 kilometres away.
As per NDTV, though they are called long-range missiles, they cannot cover the same distance as cruise missiles or intercontinental ballistic missiles.
What do experts say?
Experts say they are not a game-changer.
“ATACMS, just like any other type of missiles, can’t change anything principally, and the damage they cause is always limited, especially when there’s too few of them,” Nikolay Mitrokhin, a researcher with Germany’s Bremen University, told Al Jazeera.
In any case, it may be a case of too little, too late.
“This is a final entry for memoirs and an attempt to say ‘I did all I could’ before leaving,” Kyiv-based analyst Aleksey Kushch added. “Plus, there is a factor of strategic uncertainty for Russia , but it won’t work any more,” he said.
“The decision comes late, and like other decisions in this vein, it may be too late to substantially change the course of the fighting,” said Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
“Long-range strikes were always one piece of the puzzle, and had been overly freighted with expectations in this war.”
A central European defence official told Reuters the strikes would give Kyiv a greater chance to defend itself from aerial attacks, but would not decisively swing the conflict in Ukraine’s favour.
Russia had already moved many of its air assets beyond the reach of Western weapons in Ukraine, the official said, although the range would cover beyond the area of Kursk occupied by Ukraine.
The missiles were part of a $300 million military aid package for Ukraine. It was approved by Biden on March 12, Reuters reported, citing an official.
The exact number of missiles sent are not known.
White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan confirmed that a “significant number” had been sent to Ukraine.
On the streets of Kyiv on Monday, the general feeling was that the decision would help, but that it had come far too late.
“This should have been used either as a preventative measure, or as a sharp reaction in February or March 2022. Now it does not play a big role,” said Olga Korovyachuk, 21.
Vitaly, a wounded Ukrainian serviceman, agrees.
Vitaly told Al Jazeera that Biden “should have let us use them without any limits two years ago.”
“We were chasing the Russians out of [the eastern region of] Kharkiv, and could have brought the war to them, to their territory,” the 29-year-old said.
Much has changed on the ground since then, as he noted.
“It’s too late, because now, Russians are emboldened. Their economy works for the war, their people are zombified into enlisting and get loads of money for it, and we are losing a little every day,” Vitaly added.
What happens next?
President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday lowered the threshold for Russian use of nuclear weapons in a new policy document.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters at the G20 in Rio de Janeiro that nuclear weapons would act as a deterrent to nuclear war.
Russia has been warning the West for months that if Washington allowed Ukraine to fire U.S., British and French missiles deep into Russia then Moscow would consider those NATO members to be directly involved in the war in Ukraine.
Analysts said the biggest change was that Russia could consider a nuclear strike in response to a conventional attack on Russia or ally Belarus that “created a critical threat to their sovereignty and (or) their territorial integrity”.
“The big picture is that Russia is lowering the threshold for a nuclear strike in response to a possible conventional attack,” said Alexander Graef, a senior researcher at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg.
The previous doctrine, set out in a 2020 decree, said Russia may use nuclear weapons in case of a nuclear attack by an enemy or a conventional attack that threatened the existence of the state.
In a clear reference to Ukraine and the United States, the doctrine said any attack by a non-nuclear power supported by a nuclear power would be considered a joint attack.
Any attack by one member of a military bloc would be considered an attack by the entire alliance, it said.
Together, Russia and the U.S. control 88% of the world’s nuclear warheads.
The United States was not surprised by Russia’s announced change in its nuclear doctrine and does not plan to adjust its own nuclear posture in response, a White House National Security Council spokesperson said on Tuesday.
“We were not surprised by Russia’s announcement that it would update its nuclear doctrine,” the spokesperson said.
“We have not seen any reason to adjust our own nuclear posture or doctrine in response to Russia’s statements today,” they added.
With inputs from agenciese