Next week, the already highly publicized debate about whether Ukraine should be allowed to use long-range Western-supplied missiles on Russian soil will gain even more international attention.
Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, is scheduled to meet with US President Joe Biden, who has shown a willingness to discuss the matter. Zelensky may also meet with both US presidential candidates during the UN General Assembly in New York.
Experts note that the increasing public discussion of this issue has heightened the stakes surrounding the decision.
This debate may also influence the role that missiles, such as the Franco-British Storm Shadow/Scalp and the US-made Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), could play in this escalating conflict.
Nearly a year ago, during a similar in-person meeting between Zelensky and Biden in the US, the decision was made to supply ATACMS to Ukraine. Although news of the decision leaked at the time, official confirmation did not come until a month later.
Zelensky mentioned it at the end of a nightly address on October 18, saying, “Our agreements with President Biden are being implemented. And they are being implemented very accurately—ATACMS have proven themselves.”
By that point, the missiles had already been used in several strikes on Russian-occupied Luhansk and the southern coastal town of Berdiansk, according to US officials.
A few months prior, a similar situation occurred with the British Storm Shadow missiles. Then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace confirmed they had been supplied only after they were already in use. In both cases, Ukraine had promised not to use these missiles on Russian territory.
This September, Zelensky has taken a more direct approach, challenging his allies more openly. Combined with Russia’s threats that any lifting of restrictions on these missiles’ use would lead to war with NATO, the issue of firing them into Russia has become a political flashpoint—a defining factor in the extent of Western support.
Zelensky has ensured that the topic remains in the headlines, publicly criticizing his allies’ reluctance to act after a Russian strike on a military educational facility in Poltava killed over 50 people earlier this month. “Every day of delay is, unfortunately, the death of people,” he stated.
Following a Russian bomb attack on an apartment building in Kharkiv last weekend, Zelensky even implied cowardice on the part of hesitant allies, saying, “This terror can be stopped. But to stop it, the fear of making strong, objectively necessary decisions must be overcome.”
“Zelensky has taken a bit of a risk on this,” says Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, a think tank in London. “He’s almost playing political chicken, daring people to support him.”
If successful, the political payoff would be substantial, says Savill, weakening Russian rhetoric and “demonstrating firm international support” for Ukraine.
However, the potential battlefield impact of these missiles is less certain. Opinions are divided on whether the public debate over missile permissions has diminished their effectiveness, especially in targeting Russian fighter jets and missiles before they strike Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure.
US intelligence estimates that 90% of Russian aircraft launching deadly glide bombs, about 100 per day according to Zelensky, are stationed more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) from Ukrainian-controlled areas, placing them beyond ATACMS range.
That distance may increase as Russia has recently relocated planes from two bases near the border to farther east, according to a US official.
Savill concurs that many of the most valuable targets have likely been moved deeper into Russian territory, limiting the potential impact on the war.
Nonetheless, he believes the missiles still hold value. Storm Shadows, designed to penetrate deeply into concrete, could be effective against military headquarters or ammunition depots still within range. Some ATACMS models, equipped with cluster warheads, could inflict serious damage on airfields.
Long-Range Missiles (Photo: Getty Images)
According to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a Washington, DC-based think tank, 15 Russian airfields are within ATACMS range, though it remains unclear how many aircraft are still stationed there.
George Barros, the author of the ISW research, acknowledges that a less public debate might have been preferable, but argues that if the prospect of missile permissions has caused Russia to move its aircraft further from the border, it’s a positive outcome.
This relocation could reduce the number of Russian bombing missions (known as sortie rates) and provide Ukraine with valuable detection and reaction time for incoming attacks.
More critically, Barros believes that if Ukraine can strike Russian troops, weaponry, and logistics within the 300-kilometer range of ATACMS, it would force Russia to reassess the risks of deploying large numbers of troops and equipment into Ukraine.
“You’ve only just now started talking about a potential risk to Russia’s rear area and depriving them of this insane luxury that the Russian command has leveraged,” Barros told.
This would limit Russia’s ability to mass equipment and maintain a 10-to-1 artillery advantage over Ukraine at the front lines.
Barros’ research identifies at least 200 potential targets within ATACMS range, including military regiments, fuel depots, weapons storage sites, and the headquarters of Russia’s Southern Military District in Rostov.
He notes that this list is conservative and does not account for new targets established since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022.
Some of the most recent targets could include Iranian FATH-360 ballistic missiles, which the US believes have already been supplied and have a shorter range of 75 kilometers (47 miles) compared to Western missiles.
Experts also believe that these long-range missiles could provide crucial support to Ukraine’s drone and ground operations. Savill suggests that ATACMS could severely damage Russian air defense radars and systems.
“If you punch a hole through, Ukrainian long-range drones will have better options to penetrate deeper into Russia,” he said. Hitting Russian air defense systems near the border could also enhance Ukraine’s chances of reclaiming its own territory, according to Barros.
There is even the theoretical possibility of extending missile range by launching from Ukrainian positions inside Russian territory, such as Kursk, though this would expose Ukrainian bombers and missile launchers to Russian air defenses.
Ultimately, Ukraine argues that the ability to use Western-supplied long-range missiles on Russian soil is part of a larger strategy to end the war on Kyiv’s terms and demonstrate to Russia that it cannot outlast Ukraine’s allies.
Zelensky heads to the US buoyed by recent successes in the Kursk offensive, which he says showcase both Ukrainian ingenuity and the weakness of Russian “red lines.”
At the same time, he faces the daunting challenge of preparing for a third winter with critical electricity shortages, and a continued shortfall in equipment and manpower.
“We need this long-range capability not only on occupied Ukrainian territory but also on Russian territory,” Zelensky told Ukraine’s allies at a recent meeting at the US Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. “So Russia is motivated to seek peace.”
