With much fanfare, Ukraine was granted permission to fire Western long-range missiles at Russian military targets more than a month ago. But after initially firing a flurry of them, Ukraine has already slowed their use.
Kyiv is running out of missiles. It also might be running out of time: President-elect Donald J. Trump has said publicly that allowing U.S.-made long-range missiles inside Russia was a big mistake.
So far, the missiles have been effective in limited ways, but they have not changed the war’s trajectory, senior NATO officials said.
The war has also not escalated as some had feared. Although Russia launched a powerful new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile at a Ukrainian weapons facility after the first two volleys of Western long-range missiles, it has since responded to them with its usual mix of drones, missiles and threats.
Two U.S. officials said they believed Russia was trying to avoid escalating military operations in Ukraine, especially with the election of Mr. Trump, a longtime skeptic of the war, and given Russia’s recent battlefield successes. They spoke on the condition of anonymity given the political sensitivities.
Adm. Rob Bauer, NATO’s most senior military officer, said recently that the strikes by the long-range ballistic Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, had “seriously hit a number” of weapons factories and ammunition depots in Russia. He said that had forced Russia to move many logistics facilities farther back from the front.
“They don’t like the ATACMS coming in their own country, through the air — they don’t, because they are effective,” Admiral Bauer said in an interview in early December.
“That limits their ability to fight effectively at the front, and that’s what you want,” he added. “The question is, then, is it enough to win?”
In some ways, what has happened with the ATACMS — pronounced “attack ’ems” — is the story of what has happened with other Western weaponry in the war. Ukraine pressed for months and even years to get Western weapons: HIMARS rocket launchers, Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter jets.
But by the time the West granted access to these weapons, Ukraine had lost more ground. And no weapon has been a silver bullet. Western officials also say Ukraine has relied too much on help from the West and hasn’t done enough to bolster its own war effort, especially in mobilizing enough troops.
The United States had long resisted sending Ukraine long-range ATACMS, with a range of 190 miles, fearing that their use deep inside nuclear-armed Russia would escalate the war.
In the spring, President Biden relented. The administration shipped Ukraine as many as 500 missiles from Pentagon stockpiles, the U.S. officials said. While Ukraine couldn’t use them in Russia, they fired them at targets in eastern Ukrainian territories controlled by Russia and in Crimea, seized by Russia in 2014 — aiming at hardened command and control posts, weapons storage areas and some other bunkers.
U.S. and NATO officials said those strikes had been effective, but also said that they felt Ukraine could have been more judicious in the number of missiles used and more selective with targeting.
The U.S. officials said Mr. Biden had justified granting permission on Nov. 17 to use the missiles in Russia because Moscow brought North Korean soldiers into the war.
There were caveats, though. U.S. officials said the weapons would initially be used mainly against Russian and North Korean troops in the Kursk region of western Russia, where Ukraine was trying to hold onto territory after a surprise Ukrainian offensive in August.
At that point, Ukraine had only “tens of the missiles” left — maybe about 50, the two U.S. officials said. It had no likelihood of getting more, they said.. The limited American supplies had already been assigned for deployment in the Middle East and Asia. Officials in Britain, which allowed Ukraine to use its long-range Storm Shadow missiles inside Russia after Mr. Biden’s decision, also said recently that it didn’t have many more to provide.
It is unlikely that Mr. Trump will step in to fill the gap. He recently told Time magazine that he disagreed “very vehemently” with Ukraine’s use of ATACMS in Russian territory and called Mr. Biden’s decision to provide them “foolish.” The next day, the Kremlin said Mr. Trump’s position “fully aligned” with Moscow.
Since the United States and Britain granted permission, Ukraine has launched at least a half-dozen missile strikes, using at least 31 ATACMS and 14 Storm Shadows, according to the Russian Defense Ministry and Russian military bloggers. The Ukrainian military does not comment on the use of the missiles, but neither the United States nor Ukraine has challenged those reports.
The most damaging attack appears to have been from Storm Shadows fired on Nov. 20 at a Russian command bunker near Maryino, Kursk, officials and analysts said.
On Nov. 21, Russia launched its new hypersonic ballistic missile, the Oreshnik, or “hazelnut tree,” at a military facility in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. That was seen as a warning that Russian could hit any part of Europe with the new missile, a message to Europe and America about possible consequences.
Six days later, the Russian general who was the architect of the Ukraine invasion called Mr. Biden’s top military adviser to discuss concerns about escalation, insisting that its missile test had been long planned.
After that Nov. 27 call, Ukraine didn’t fire ATACMS or Storm Shadows for two weeks. Russia also launched few missile or drone attacks into Ukraine, although Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, threatened to launch the Оreshnik at the center of Кyiv if Ukraine didn’t stop using ATACMS in Russia.
Despite his public threats, Mr. Putin is trying to react carefully to Ukrainian operations, the U.S. officials said. They believe Moscow will most likely not respond to ATACMS strikes in a way that could risk drawing Washington deeper in the fight or put the new administration in an awkward position as it comes in.
Moscow could step up cyber or sabotage operations in Europe, but it is unlikely to directly target U.S. interests, the officials said.
Some analysts said Ukraine had slowed its missile use because it had initially targeted Russian facilities it had long wanted to hit. Now, with few missiles remaining, Ukraine is being more deliberate.
“We decided to wait and find high-value capability, and that’s natural,” said Mykola Bielieskov, a military analyst at Ukraine’s government-run National Institute for Strategic Studies. “Don’t expect quick returns, because we need to preserve this capability and spend it judiciously and very wisely.”
On Dec. 11, Russia’s Defense Ministry said Ukraine had attacked a military airfield in the southern Russian city of Taganrog, a seaport on the Azov Sea, with six ATACMS, and it promised retaliation against Ukraine.
The United States then issued a rare warning: that Russia could be preparing tо fire an Оreshnik. Instead, Russia retaliated with a large-scale aerial attack, firing 93 missiles and almost 200 drones at Ukraine’s energy sector.
On Dec. 18, Ukraine fired six of the missiles and four Storm Shadows at one of the country’s largest chemical industry facilities in Russia’s Rostov region, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense.
Two days later, Russia fired a barrage of missiles at Kyiv; Russian officials claimed they were in retaliation for the Western missile strikes.
The post Ukraine Slows Firing of Missiles Into Russia as Trump Prepares to Take Office appeared first on New York Times.
