On August 24, 2025, Reuters reported that the Pentagon has, for several months, been blocking Ukraine from using U.S.-supplied long-range ATACMS missiles against targets inside Russia. Following the inauguration of President Donald Trump, the Department of Defense introduced an informal approval process requiring that any such strike must receive personal authorization from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. According to DW, this de facto moratorium has frozen Ukrainian long-range strikes since late spring.
Strategic asymmetry and legal rights
The restrictions have created what Ukrainian officials and analysts describe as a strategic imbalance. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter guarantees Ukraine the right to strike legitimate military targets on the territory of the aggressor if attacks originate there. Russia continues to launch missiles and drones from deep inside its territory, while Ukraine is effectively barred from responding with ATACMS. This asymmetry preserves Moscow’s safe havens and undermines the principle of deterrence.
Military impact and rising costs
Without the ability to disrupt Russian logistics, air defenses, airbases and ammunition depots in the rear, the front line remains stalled. Russia’s sustained attacks increase Ukraine’s reliance on air defense systems and ammunition supplied by Western partners. This dynamic drives up overall financial, military and energy costs for U.S. taxpayers. Analysts argue that authorizing deep strikes could shorten the war’s timeline and reduce long-term expenses of support.
Erosion of deterrence and allied confidence
U.S. credibility, observers warn, relies on predictability and consistency. Delivering advanced systems but restricting their use at decisive moments undermines confidence among allies and signals hesitation to adversaries such as China. The result is weaker deterrence in both Europe and Asia, alongside greater risk of wider conflicts. Last year, the previous U.S. administration eased restrictions following North Korea’s support for Russia, but the current reversal is seen as inconsistent and damaging to allied morale.
International law and humanitarian stakes
Strikes against lawful military objectives in Russia would fall within the scope of self-defense under international law, provided the principles of distinction and proportionality are respected. Blanket prohibitions instead transform parts of Russia into an “immunity zone,” which critics say contradicts the spirit of international law and emboldens further aggression. When Russian launch sites, depots and airfields remain untouched, the frequency of attacks on Ukrainian cities grows. Allowing such strikes, advocates argue, would reduce civilian casualties and humanitarian costs, framing them not as escalation but as prevention of future war crimes.
Risks of escalation and controlled deterrence
Analysts stress that escalation risks can be managed through a narrow target set limited strictly to military infrastructure, approved types of munitions and a transparent decision-making framework. A complete ban, by contrast, incentivizes the Kremlin to escalate, knowing its rear areas are shielded by political restrictions. Strategic restraint, in this view, provokes rather than deters, while measured resolve could shorten the war and reduce future instability.
Wider geopolitical consequences
The policy has implications beyond Ukraine. Preventing Kyiv from striking Russian military hubs prolongs the war, increases budgetary burdens on Western partners, raises migration pressure on the European Union and weakens NATO’s security posture. Conversely, enabling Ukraine to degrade Russian strike capacity would reduce humanitarian and financial costs, bolster U.S. influence in the Global South, and strengthen Washington’s strategic position in its competition with China.
Ukraine, its allies, and international observers now see the Pentagon’s restrictions not only as a tactical limitation but as a broader test of U.S. strategic coherence in defending the principles of international law and deterrence.
