“Ukraine needs long-range missiles,” President Zelenskyy said in a January video address, “to deprive the occupier of the opportunity to place its missile launchers somewhere far from the front line and destroy Ukrainian cities.” This, of course, is a lie told for marketing reasons. Zelenskyy, as much as he may sincerely want to defend his people, knows that missiles that strike civilians are missiles wasted. Therefore, missiles that strike missiles that strike civilians are also missiles wasted: Ukraine needs ATACMS for a fundamentally different reason—to disrupt Russia’s logistics and hit their command-and-control centers.
While Ukraine has been given access long-range cruise missiles like Storm Shadow, those missiles must be launched from an aircraft: And, as we all know, Ukraine has precious few aircraft available. ATACMS, on the other hand, can be launched from a HIMARS system: meaning Ukraine could hit high-value Russian targets without risking its few available aircraft. ATACMS is also much faster than Storm Shadow—and could better evade Russia’s air defenses despite Storm Shadow’s stealth. While Storm Shadow is high subsonic, ATACMS travel at about Mach 3 at altitudes as high as 160,000 feet.
One of the fundamental problems with the Russian military is that it lacks initiative below the highest levels of its officer corps: The exact same problem the Iraqi military had. When you have a micromanaged military, hitting command-and-control centers becomes an even more effective tactic. However, Ukraine has been unable to do this simply because it lacks the air power to do so. ATACMS would make up for this lack of air power, at least in part. If a Ukrainian attack could be met with a severing of ties to Russia’s command structures, much as they did in Iraq, Russian soldiers would be inclined to surrender since Russia lacks the NCOs and motivated lieutenants who would motivate them to keep fighting. Of course, Operation Desert Storm was an extreme example, but some of the same reasoning applies whenever you are at war with a top-down military structure.
Even more important than logistics hubs and command and control centers are the bridges Russia relies on to maintain its logistical system. ATACMS could, for example, hit the Crimean bridge and other key bridges in the south and seriously disrupt Russia’s ability to supply its troops. This could be done regularly instead of requiring elaborate planning and preparation, which gives Russia time to repair said bridges. If you combine that with the occasional strike on a supply depo deep in Russia’s rear, and it is easy to see how ATACMS would change the tide of battle. Not only would Russia’s entrenched forces receive less food and ammunition, but Russia’s mobile reserves would become less mobile. This would increase the effect of any breakthrough Ukraine happens to achieve.
The Biden administration refuses to provide them because, somehow, they are “escalatory.” I am not entirely certain that this makes much sense—as Ukraine already has been given long-range cruise missiles and the Russians did not retaliate or escalate the conflict: Frankly, Russia is not poised to escalate—even retaliatory strikes waste weapons Russia needs desperately elsewhere. One possibility is that the US is running low on these systems itself and is hiding behind the fears of escalation. As the ATACMS is currently being replaced by the Precision Strike Missile, the US might want to wait till these new missiles have reached full production before divesting itself of its ATACMS inventory. If that is the case, then a Ukrainian victory may be dependent on how quickly Lockeheed and Raytheon can turn out the new PSMs.
It is somewhat unfortunate that Zelenskyy has taken to lying in order to procure these much-needed weapons: I imagine that “we need to hit the missile sites that are targeting our people” is a better story than “we need to destroy some bridges.” My guess is that Zelenskyy would, depending on how many ATACMS he received, hit one or two missile sites—or better yet an air base fuel depot—in order to give this narrative some credibility: The truth is that they would be used to strike Russia’s logistical system. However, that is exactly what Ukraine needs to do in order to win.
Pretty much spot on.