signals

Ukraine announced it launched Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) short-range ballistic missiles at military targets in Russia. The attack appears to be the first use of these U.S.-made weapons into Russia under the Trump administration. It also points to the strong possibility that another batch of the prized missiles have been supplied to Ukraine, which is noteworthy in itself due to the limited U.S. stocks of the weapons, and/or that the White House has approved the type’s use once again.

“This is a significant development that underscores Ukraine’s unwavering commitment to its sovereignty,” the Ukrainian Armed Forces General Staff said of the attack. “Despite the ongoing pressure of Russian offensive actions, Ukrainians remain resilient, demonstrating determination and consistent resolve in defending their homeland.”

“The use of long-range strike capabilities, including systems such as ATACMS, will continue,” the Armed Forces General Staff added.

Ukrainian officials provided no details about the ATACMS targets or how many were launched. Newer variants of these missiles can reach to nearly 200 miles, with first generation models having just over half the range.

Ukrainian and Russian mibloggers suggested that Ukraine attacked locations in Russia’s Voronezh region, among them the Pogonovo training area, located roughly 105 miles from the border. However, there is no independent verification of that.

The following video, first published by the Supernova+ Telegram channel, purports to show one of the ATACMS being shot down.

Cluster warheads packed with submunitions would be an ideal weapon to fire at a location where troops might be concentrated in the open. Ukraine used cluster munitions-equipped ATACMS to hit a Russian training ground in the occupied Luhansk region in May 2024 to devastating effect. That strike was also captured on video, which you can see below.

Though Kyiv claimed it will continue using ATACMS, just how many it has left is a mystery. Considering the long stretch between known uses, it likely ran dry for an extended period of time until the U.S. supplied more. The Trump administration could have also blocked the use of the weapons, especially into Russian territory, until now, although we cannot confirm this at this time.

Ukraine still has a number of U.S.-made Army High Mobility Rocket System (HIMARS) and M270 MLRS launchers that fire ATACMs. However, the last of these munitions authorized to be sent to Ukraine by former President Joe Biden arrived in the spring, The Wall Street Journal reported in August. The publication noted that “Kyiv has a small supply left, according to U.S. officials.”

Meanwhile, in March, The Associated Press reported Ukraine ran out of ATACMs. A U.S. official told the wire service at the time that “Ukraine was given fewer than 40 of those missiles overall and that Ukraine ran out of them in late January.”

We cannot confirm that number, but we do know they were not furnished by the many hundreds or anything approaching that number. The U.S. inventory is thought to be the low thousands.

Senior U.S. defense leaders, including the previous Pentagon chief, Lloyd Austin, “had made it clear that only a limited number of the ATACMs would be delivered and that the U.S. and NATO allies considered other weapons to be more valuable in the fight,” according to the AP.

As we previously reported, the first tranche of about 20 early generation, shorter-range ATACMS variants arrived in Ukraine in October 2023 and were apparently mostly used during attacks on Russian-held airfields the same month. Ukraine has used the limited number of these prized weapons it has received with major results. Longer-range variants, which were not introduced into the war until the Spring of 2024, were first used in a wave of attacks on air bases and air defense installations across the Crimean peninsula, according to the Kyiv Post.

A major reason for the limited number of ATACMS given to Ukraine is that U.S. officials have expressed concern about their own stockpiles. However, in December 2023, the U.S. Army began receiving the first tranches of the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) short-range ballistic missiles. The Army, which sees PrSMs as the ATACMS successor, said in September 2023 that the advent of these weapons could reduce some of the readiness risks associated with giving Ukraine ATACMS. It is quite possible that PrSM deliveries had freed-up more ATACMS rounds for Ukraine, and, given the chill between the White House and the Kremlin, these weapons would work both as a tactical tool and a strategic message.

This is especially the case as discussions continue regarding the U.S. supplying even more advanced and longer-range weaponry to Ukraine. While Trump has seemed to sour on giving Ukraine Tomahawk cruise missiles, more ATACMS, which have far shorter range and do not set a new precedent, would be a likely alternative.

After meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in September, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said his American counterpart was open to lifting restrictions on Kyiv’s use of American-made long-range weapons to strike inside Russia, according to The Wall Street Journal. Trump didn’t make any commitments to do so, the newspaper reported.

A month earlier, the Journal wrote that the Pentagon had for months “been blocking Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles to strike inside Russia.”

“A high-level Defense Department approval procedure, which hasn’t been announced, has prevented Ukraine from firing ATACMS missiles against targets in Russia since late spring,” the Journal added. “On at least one occasion, Ukraine sought to use ATACMS against a target on Russian territory but was rejected.”

The last recorded case of a Ukrainian ATACMS strike inside Russia was on January 14 as part of a massive attack also using U.K.-made Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missiles and long-range drones. That took place in the waning days of the Joe Biden administration, which also took a circuitous route in giving Ukraine ATACMS and then allowing them to strike inside Russia. The following graphic, produced as Biden was debating allowing Ukraine to hit Russia with ATACMS, gave a sense of what kinds of targets could be reached.

The first such attack took place almost exactly a year ago. On Nov. 19, 2024, a munitions storage facility near the town of Karachev in the Bryansk region of western Russia was hit by ATACMS. The target was around 70 miles from the Ukrainian border, well within range of these missiles.

There are many questions unanswered about Ukraine’s claimed ATACMS strike today. We have reached out to the White House, Pentagon and State Department to see if we can get some answers about the last time Ukraine was given these weapons and the last time they were used in Russia. We will update this story if they give us any useful details.

While ATACMS did have major lasting battlefield effects, it never proved to be a game-changer based on the tiny quantities provided. But they are another long-range weapon that has existed in Ukraine’s arsenal that packs a punch far heavier than the long-range drones Kyiv has been using across Russia. With Ukraine’s introduction of home-made cruise missiles, this equation is changing, but still, ATACMS are survivable and hit very hard when equipped with a unitary warhead and its cluster warheads can blanket large areas with explosions and shrapnel.

If the strike occurred as stated today, it points to a shift in the Trump administration’s policy when it comes to long-range strikes with U.S. weapons into Russia and it could also indicate the ATACMS supplies are flowing once again.

Contact the author: [email protected]

WASHINGTON — Senators are working through the weekend for the first time since the government shutdown began more than a month ago, hoping to find a bipartisan resolution that has eluded them as federal workers have gone unpaid, airlines have been forced to cancel flights and SNAP benefits have been delayed for millions of Americans.

As the weekend session was set to begin Saturday, it was uncertain whether Republicans and Democrats could make any headway toward reopening the government and breaking a partisan impasse that had lasted 39 days.

President Trump made clear Saturday that he is unlikely to compromise anytime soon with Democrats, who are demanding an extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits. He posted on social media that the ACA is “the worst Healthcare anywhere in the world” and suggested Congress send money directly to people to buy insurance.

Senate Republican leaders have signaled an openness to an emerging proposal from a small group of moderate Democrats to end the shutdown in exchange for a later vote on the ACA subsidies.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who is leading the talks among moderates, said Friday evening that Democrats “need another path forward” after Republicans rejected an offer from Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York to reopen the government and extend the subsidies for a year. “We’re working on it,” she said.

Moderates continue to negotiate

Shaheen and others, negotiating among themselves and with some rank-and-file Republicans, have been discussing bills that would pay for parts of government — food aid, veterans programs and the legislative branch, among other things — and extend funding for everything else until December or January. The agreement would only come with the promise of a future healthcare vote rather than a guarantee of extended subsidies.

It was unclear whether enough Democrats would support such a plan. Even with a deal, Trump appears unlikely to support an extension of the health benefits. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) also said this week that he would not commit to a healthcare vote.

Republican leaders need only five additional votes to fund the government, and the group involved in the talks has ranged from 10 to 12 Democratic senators.

Some Republicans have said they are open to extending the COVID-19 tax credits as premiums could skyrocket for millions of people, but they want new limits on who can receive the subsidies.

“We have had really good discussions with a lot of the Democrats,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.).

Republicans eye new package of bills

Trump wants Republicans to end the shutdown quickly and scrap the filibuster, which requires 60 Senate votes for most legislation, so they can bypass Democrats altogether. Vice President JD Vance, a former Ohio senator, endorsed the idea in an online post Saturday, saying Republicans who want to keep the filibuster are “wrong.”

Republicans have rejected Trump’s call, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is eyeing a bipartisan package that mirrors the proposal the moderate Democrats have been sketching out. What Thune might promise on healthcare is unknown; he has refused to negotiate thus far.

The package would replace the House-passed legislation that the Democrats have rejected 14 times since the shutdown began Oct. 1. The current bill would extend government funding only until Nov. 21.

A choice for Democrats

A test vote on new legislation could come in the next few days if Thune decides to move forward.

Then Democrats would have a crucial choice: Keep fighting for a meaningful deal on extending the subsidies that expire in January, while prolonging the pain of the shutdown? Or vote to reopen the government and hope for the best as Republicans promise an eventual healthcare vote — but not a guaranteed outcome.

After a caucus meeting Thursday, most Democrats suggested they would continue to hold out for Trump and Republican leaders to agree to negotiations.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said Democrats are “obviously not unanimous” but “without something on healthcare, the vote is very unlikely to succeed.”

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said they need to stand strong after overwhelming Democratic victories on election day this week and demand an extension of the subsidies.

Jalonick and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writers Seung Min Kim, Joey Cappelletti, Stephen Groves and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

Nov. 4 (UPI) — British Chancellor Rachel Reeves signaled Tuesday that she was likely to raise taxes on ordinary people in her upcoming budget this month in spite of an election pledge by the Labour government it would not do so.

In a speech in Downing Street, Reeves said she would make “the choices necessary” to ensure the foundation of the economy was sufficiently strong for the government to deliver on its mandate to protect the NHS, get down the national debt and rebuild the economy.

Notably, she did not repeat the manifesto pledge the party ran on in the 2024 general election, in which it swept to power to leave untouched the three main taxes — income tax, National Insurance and VAT.

Instead, seeking to explain her actions in advance of her watershed budget, which she will deliver to Parliament on Nov. 26, she said people needed to “understand the circumstances we are facing” and that everyone needed to do their bit to rectify the situation.

“As I take my decisions on both tax and spend I will do what is necessary to protect families from high inflation and interest rates, to protect our public services from a return to austerity and to ensure that the economy that we hand down to future generations is secure, with debt under control.

“If we are to build the future of Britain together, we will all have to contribute to that effort. Each of us must do our bit for the security of our country and the brightness of its future.”

Reeves dangled the prospect of rewards down the line, stating that getting it right now would yield more resilient public finances with the headroom to withstand global shocks, which in turn would provide businesses with the confidence to invest.

She said that would in turn leave the government with more leeway to act when necessary, investing in infrastructure and industry to build a stronger economy and get down the cost of government debt, spending less on interest and more and schools and the NHS.

Reeves is betting on the budget, her second, to win the endorsement of the market for her management of the country’s finances by showing she can stick to the fiscal rules she set for herself in October 2024.

Those rules state she must balance spending with revenue — within a plus or minus margin of 0.5% of GDP — within five years, meaning no borrowing for everyday spending from the 2029-30 financial year onward. In addition, the ratio of government debt to GDP must begin falling within the same timeframe.

To do that, however, she must demonstrate how she plans to plug a fiscal hole of as much as $40 billion and boost lackluster economic growth.

The only options to close the gap and balance the books are a return to austerity — which the government has categorically ruled out — or boost the amount of money flowing into government coffers.

Reeves raised some taxes on business in her first budget in November 2024 and to come back for more after promising she would not do so, particulary when it comes to raising the basic rate of income tax — currently 20% — is very high risk, politically.

It hasn’t been done for 50 years and it didn’t work out well for then-Labour government with the country plunged into a currency crisis and forced to seek a bailout loan from the IMF.

Reeves mostly laid blame at the feet of the previous Conservative administration’s policies, including Brexit, austerity and cuts to infrastructure spending, all of which she said had led to falling productivity.

She also cited high inflation globally and economic uncertainty created by the trade tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump in recent months.

Conservative shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, said it was now certain tax hikes for families and businesses were on the way.

He said that if Reeves proceeded to go back on her word, she should quit.

Daisy Cooper, Treasury spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, said the government could no longer dodge responsibility.

“It’s clear that this budget will be a bitter pill to swallow as the government seems to have run out of excuses,” she said.