Amid Putin’s Stern Warning “War Is Going Global,” Questions Arise Over ATACMS’ Capabilities, Did Biden Dump Expired Defense Trash On Kyiv?

Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a stark warning, suggesting that the Ukraine conflict is escalating toward a global confrontation. The trigger? Western weapons now being used directly against Russian targets.

In a televised address on Thursday, Putin accused the United States and Britain of pushing the conflict into dangerous territory. The deployment of U.S.-made ATACMS missiles and British Storm Shadow missiles by Ukraine has, according to Putin, added “elements of a global character” to what was previously a regional conflict.

What Happened?

Ukraine launched a series of attacks in November, striking Russian targets with six U.S.-made ATACMS on November 19. This was followed by an attack using British Storm Shadow missiles and U.S.-made HIMARS on November 21. While Putin dismissed the ATACMS strikes as ineffective, he claimed the Storm Shadow missiles targeted a Russian command center in the Kursk region, resulting in casualties.

Putin’s verdict on the Western-supplied weapons was scathing. He said these attacks, while provocative, “are not able to change the course of the military actions” in the conflict. The Russian leader suggested that Ukraine’s allies were banking on outdated or overhyped technology.

Did Biden Dump Defense Trash on Kyiv?

Meanwhile, as the Ukraine-Russia war escalates into its 33rd month, questions are swirling around the quality of U.S. military aid being sent to Kyiv. Specifically, concerns have emerged over the decision to provide Ukraine with expired or soon-to-expire ATACMS missiles, sparking a heated debate about their actual battlefield effectiveness and whether this was a strategic move or an act of offloading outdated inventory.

The focus has turned to the U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles, with reports indicating some of these weapons expired as early as 2015. According to Pentagon budget disclosures, significant resources were spent refurbishing expired missiles. Between 2016 and 2021, the U.S. Army invested $1.22 billion to modify 1,075 ATACMS missiles, extending their lifespan to 2025.

However, this costly process has raised questions about their reliability, as the modifications only delay obsolescence rather than resolving the root issues.

In Fiscal Year 2016, $30.1 million was spent on refurbishing just 10 ATACMS missiles, reflecting the growing financial burden of maintaining these weapons. The situation became further complicated when the U.S. Army began phasing out ATACMS in favor of the newer and more advanced Precision Strike Missile (PrSM).

The PrSM Upgrade

The PrSM, which costs over $2 million per unit—double the $1 million price tag of an ATACMS—has become the centerpiece of the U.S. Army’s modernization efforts. Production of the PrSM surged from 42 units in FY23 to a planned 230 units in FY25, indicating a clear shift in priorities.

Thus, for Kyiv, this raises an uncomfortable question – Is it receiving top-tier aid, or is Washington offloading expiring inventory to fund its military upgrades?

Ukraine has received $33.38 billion worth of weapons through the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA). However, a Ukraine Oversight Report reveals that Washington simultaneously spent $45.7 billion replenishing its stockpiles with newer systems. This dual strategy of aid and self-rearmament has drawn criticism, with some accusing the U.S. of treating Ukraine as a testing ground for outdated or surplus weapons.

The Russian Response, Hypersonic Escalation

While Ukraine is dealing with the efficacy of its Western-supplied arsenal, Russia has upped the ante.

In a recent address, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the launch of a new medium-range hypersonic ballistic missile, the “Oreshnik” (Hazel), targeting military facilities in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. Putin claimed the missile strike was a response to Ukraine’s use of U.S. and British long-range weapons, including ATACMS, HIMARS, and Storm Shadow missiles, to hit Russian territory.

Putin warned that this escalation could continue, stating that Russia might use similar weapons against military facilities in countries aiding Ukraine. However, he also promised to notify civilians ahead of future strikes, a gesture that rings hollow in a war marred by widespread destruction and loss of life.

Putin’s address wasn’t just about immediate military actions—it also took aim at the United States’ 2019 withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The agreement, signed in 1987, had been a cornerstone of Cold War-era arms control.
While the U.S. accused Russia of violating the treaty, Moscow denied the allegations and imposed a self-declared moratorium on deploying such missiles. Now, Putin suggests that Russia’s moratorium is conditional, warning that Moscow’s actions will mirror those of the West.

Zelenskyy’s Big Dilemma

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy labeled Russia’s use of the hypersonic missile as a “severe escalation,” calling for stronger global condemnation. His frustration no doubt reflects the broader challenges Ukraine is facing in countering an increasingly aggressive Russia while relying on potentially subpar Western military aid.

Zelenskyy’s criticism also extended to the global community, accusing it of inaction. “A lack of tough reactions to Russia’s actions sends a message that such behavior is acceptable,” he said in a statement.

As the night sky over Dnipro lit up with glowing projectiles, the Ukraine-Russia war seemed to reach a new, chilling phase. A video shared by Ukrainian military charity Come Back Alive captured what it described as the aftermath of Russian missile strikes on the city, indicating at the intensifying conflict.

NATO was quick to respond, with spokesperson Farah Dakhlallah condemning Russia’s actions as an attempt to “terrorize civilians and intimidate Ukraine’s allies.”

Jockeying for Position Ahead of Trump’s Return

The timing of these escalations coincides with a major political transition in Washington. With just two months left in his presidency, Joe Biden authorized Ukraine’s use of ATACMS, marking a significant policy shift.
Sources suggest that the move was partly influenced by the deployment of North Korean troops to aid Russia—a development seen as a provocative escalation by Moscow.

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House, his potential approach to the conflict remains to be seen. Trump has repeatedly criticized the billions spent on aiding Ukraine under Biden’s administration, calling for an end to the war, albeit without providing specifics.

This uncertainty has prompted both Kyiv and Moscow to maneuver aggressively. Analysts believe both sides are seeking to consolidate their positions before potential peace talks under Trump’s leadership.

Trump’s stance on Ukraine remains ambiguous, but his emphasis on diplomacy over continued military aid has sparked concern in Kyiv. Ukrainian officials fear that a push for peace talks could come at the cost of territorial concessions. Meanwhile, Moscow may view Trump’s return as an opportunity to negotiate from a position of strength, particularly if it can demonstrate gains on the battlefield.

Both warring sides are aware that Trump’s approach could reshape the contours of the conflict but whether this will lead to a resolution or further instability remains to be seen.
Despite the escalating rhetoric and action, NATO maintains that Russia’s latest moves will not deter its commitment to Ukraine. “Deploying this capability will neither change the course of the conflict nor deter NATO allies from supporting Ukraine,” reiterated Dakhlallah.

The Last Bit

For now, the war remains locked in a dangerous cycle of escalation, with both sides jockeying for position in the uncertain months ahead. As Trump prepares to take office, what direction he might take rests heavily for Ukraine, Russia, and for the global balance of power.

Putin’s message on the other hand was clear – if Western nations allow their weapons to be used against Russian targets, Moscow reserves the right to respond in kind. “There will always be a response,” he said, hinting at the possibility of strikes on military facilities in countries supplying Ukraine.