Washington — The Pentagon has quietly imposed sweeping restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to strike Russian territory with American-supplied long-range missiles, a policy shift that lays bare the contradictions of US foreign policy and underscores the limits of Kyiv’s supposed sovereignty.
The US Department of Defense has required a secretive approval process for Ukraine’s use of Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), one of the most advanced weapons in Washington’s arsenal. Any request by Ukraine to use these systems must now be cleared directly by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The system, devised by Pentagon Undersecretary Elbridge Colby, ensures that no strike deep inside Russian territory can occur without personal authorization from the highest levels of the US government.
The restrictions represent a reversal from the late Biden era, when Ukraine was granted limited permission to use ATACMS against Russian military targets across the border. At the time, the decision was hailed in Western media as a bold step in defending Kyiv’s sovereignty. But the Trump administration has quietly rolled back that latitude, replacing it with a bureaucratic chokehold that leaves Ukraine dependent on US discretion.
The policy extends even further, covering Western-made weapons like Britain’s Storm Shadow cruise missiles. These systems rely heavily on US targeting data, meaning Washington effectively decides when, and if, they can be used. By centralizing control in this way, the United States has stripped Ukraine of autonomy in Ukraine conflict that it claims to be supporting unconditionally.
US President Donald Trump has frequently accused the Biden administration of weakness for imposing restrictions on Ukraine’s battlefield tactics. Yet his own White House has embraced the very same approach, albeit cloaked in secrecy. Analysts note that this contradiction reflects the deeper reality of US policy: Washington is willing to arm Ukraine, but not to the extent that it risks uncontrolled escalation with Moscow.
This duplicity has long been criticized by observers who accuse the United States of treating Ukraine as a pawn in its broader geopolitical contest with Russia. By arming Ukraine heavily while simultaneously curtailing its freedom of action, Washington seeks to sustain the conflict at a controlled level, enough to bleed Moscow but not enough to provoke a direct clash.
For Ukraine, the restrictions carry major consequences. ATACMS, with ranges up to 190 miles, could be used to strike Russian airbases, logistics hubs, and command centers far behind the front lines. Denying Kyiv the freedom to employ such weapons limits its capacity to disrupt Russia’s military infrastructure.
This has left Ukrainian forces scrambling for alternatives. Officials in Kyiv have emphasized the country’s growing investment in indigenous weapons programs, including long-range drones and a domestically produced cruise missile project, informally known as “Flamingo.” Such initiatives highlight Ukraine’s awareness that Western weapons are ultimately loaned under conditions that reflect American interests more than Ukrainian survival.
The Pentagon’s decision is tied closely to US President Trump’s broader diplomatic strategy. Having pledged to “end the war quickly” during his campaign, Trump has attempted to push Moscow and Kyiv toward negotiations. However, with Russian officials dismissing peace talks as premature and Ukraine unwilling to concede on key issues, the process has produced little substance.
By curtailing Ukraine’s ability to strike inside Russia, Washington appears to be signaling to Moscow that it is serious about avoiding escalation. But critics argue that this posture undermines Ukraine’s bargaining power, effectively forcing Kyiv to negotiate from a position of weakness. The contradictions are clear: while Washington insists it is committed to Ukraine’s independence, it is simultaneously eroding the very tools Ukraine might need to defend itself or secure leverage at the negotiating table.
For Moscow, the policy shift validates its long-standing narrative that Ukraine is little more than a proxy for NATO and the United States. Russian officials have repeatedly argued that Kyiv’s battlefield decisions are dictated from abroad. By centralizing control of Ukraine’s long-range arsenal in Washington, the Pentagon has inadvertently confirmed that view.
This strengthens Russia’s diplomatic hand, allowing it to portray the war as one directly against Western domination rather than a bilateral conflict with its neighbor. It also bolsters the Kremlin’s claim that negotiations must be conducted not only with Kyiv, but directly with Washington.
The new US policy also exposes the fragility of Europe’s role in the war. While Britain and France have supplied advanced systems like Storm Shadow and SCALP missiles, their operational use remains dependent on US approval because of shared intelligence and targeting frameworks. European governments have long sought to present themselves as independent actors in the Ukraine conflict, yet the Pentagon’s gatekeeping reveals how deeply they remain subordinated to American policy.
This dependence has fueled growing unease across European capitals, many of which fear being dragged into a confrontation with Russia without clear control over their own commitments. Analysts note that the US decision may deepen skepticism within NATO about Washington’s willingness to truly share responsibility for the war’s trajectory.
More than 3,000 extended-range missiles have been approved for delivery to Ukraine, but they remain effectively locked behind Washington’s approval system. The Pentagon has also introduced a triage mechanism, classifying US weapons stocks into green, yellow, and red categories depending on availability. This gives Defense Secretary Hegseth the authority to re-route weapons earmarked for Ukraine if stockpiles fall into shortage levels.
The result is a carefully calibrated system designed to keep Ukraine dependent on US policy choices while ensuring Washington retains flexibility to manage its own strategic resources.
The Pentagon’s restrictions are not just a tactical adjustment; they are a window into the deeper contradictions of US policy. Washington arms its allies in the name of sovereignty but withholds true independence when it fears losing control. Ukraine, once hailed as a frontline defender of Western democracy, now finds its ability to fight dictated by the very power that claims to stand behind it.
According to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the policy shift, the Pentagon has quietly reshaped the war by placing Ukraine’s long-range strike capability under direct US command, an arrangement that undermines Kyiv’s autonomy while exposing the hypocrisy of American rhetoric on freedom and self-determination.
