Long-Range Missiles. Six Reasons Why the US Won’t Let Ukraine Strike Deep into Russia

Over the last two and a half years, Ukraine persuaded its Western partners to supply tremendous amounts of aid.

Tanks, airplanes, air defense systems... Now Kyiv has set itself a new goal: to obtain not just long-range weapons, but also permission to use them to strike targets deep inside Russian territory. In almost every address, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asks the partners to "remove the barriers" preventing Ukraine from using these weapons effectively. The governments of NATO and EU member states, as well as a number of prominent Western politicians, experts and retired military officers are also calling for the same.

For Ukraine, missiles with the ability to hit targets at a distance of up to 500 kilometers are not a wunderwaffe or a miracle weapon. It is a tool to effectively counter Russian missile attacks on Ukrainian cities and energy and transportation infrastructure. A tool that will destroy airfields, warehouses and airplanes carrying guided aerial bombs. A tool that will save the lives of both soldiers and civilians, especially children. A tool that will help repel attacks on our positions and prevail on the battlefield.

Earlier on, Ukraine had already received long-range American ATACMS missiles from the United States and British-French Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG missiles from the United Kingdom, France and Italy. In the fall of 2023, Washington supplied Kyiv with a batch of ATACMS missiles of the old MGM-140A modification with the maximum firing range of 165 km. But in the spring of 2024, our country secretly received MGM-164/168 missiles with a range of up to 300 kilometers, which Kyiv used against military targets in Crimea.

In May 2023, it became known that the United Kingdom transferred Storm Shadows to Ukraine, and two months later France followed suit. This summer, Italy also handed over a batch of Storm Shadow missiles. However, Kyiv receives an export version of this missile, which has a range limited to 250–290 kilometers, while the basic model has a range of 560 kilometers. The governments of these countries allowed Kyiv to launch the missiles at targets in Crimea and mainland Ukraine, but prohibited their use to hit airfields, warehouses and transportation infrastructure in Russia.

The Kharkiv operation undertaken by the Russian army has partially changed Washington’s stance on the use of American weapons against targets in Russia, with Kyiv receiving permission to hit the border territory of the Belgorod region. Unfortunately, our Western partners still oppose both the provision of missiles with a range of up to 500 kilometers and strikes deep inside Russia with them. The transfer of ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine has not led to Berlin following the example of its NATO allies: Chancellor Olaf Scholz is resisting the delivery of Taurus cruise missiles on the grounds of running the risk of Germany’s involvement in a war.

The point here is not only in the “red lines” painted by the Kremlin. ZN.UA interlocutors explain the Western position by the following reasons.

Firstly, it’s our partners’ fear of escalation. This is perceived in the West as the risk of a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO and Russia’s use of nuclear weapons. (However, the threat of escalation of the conflict with Moscow did not prevent Berlin from deciding to deploy American intermediate-range missiles on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. Little wonder: after all, it was a question of Germany’s own security.)

Secondly, it’s the fear that the transfer of long-range weapons and their use will lead to direct Western involvement in military operations. For example, Chancellor Scholz explains the refusal to provide Ukraine with Taurus missiles by the fact that if they are transferred to Kyiv, it would be necessary to send German specialists to Ukraine to teach Ukrainians how to aim these missiles.

Thirdly, it’s the suspicion that Kyiv will use long-range missiles for its high-profile propaganda actions, which would escalate the armed conflict. In particular, for Ukrainian attacks on Moscow, Russia’s “decision-making center.”

Fourthly, it’s the fear that modern technologies used in missiles with a range of up to 500 kilometers will fall not only into the hands of the Russians, but also into the hands of the Chinese and Iranians.

Fifthly, it’s the need to take into account the position of partners, who provide both components for missile production and information for flight missions. Seeing as the United States and France are also involved in the production of Storm Shadow, London’s mere permission to use the missiles to strike military targets deep inside Russia is not enough; the consent of both Washington and Paris is required, which are so far against such use of Storm Shadows.

Sixthly, it’s the Western fear that Kyiv will not abide by its commitments. (However, the US Defense Department claims that Ukraine is clearly sticking to its word not to launch strikes with long-range U.S. weapons deep inside Russia).

But if the Kharkiv operation changed Washington’s approach, the Kursk operation has brought Ukraine closer to the point where the West crossed the “red line” it itself had outlined. Having said that, the situation is extremely uncertain. One of ZN.UA sources expressed confidence that by the end of the year our country will receive not only long-range weapons, but also permission to use them to strike deep into the Russian Federation. Another interlocutor assessed the situation more pessimistically, doubting that Biden will give the go-ahead.

ZN.UA interlocutors assume that the final decision of Washington, whose position is of key importance for NATO allies, will be influenced less and less by fear of escalation and more by another factor — the US presidential election.

In our opinion, the following arguments of the Ukrainian side can help convince Washington and other capitals to change their position.

Firstly, if Ukraine does not bomb nearby airfields in Russia, the military and humanitarian situation will deteriorate, and Western partners will be forced to increase military and financial aid. Secondly, Ukraine can test long-range missiles in combat conditions. Thirdly, as the Kursk operation has showed, Russia’s threats are just blackmail. Fourthly, Kyiv can sign agreements with its partners, enshrining its commitment to preserve technology and, possibly, to organize the production of missiles on its territory.

Tellingly, the government of Keir Starmer deliberately made no secret of the fact that during the offensive in the Kursk region, the Ukrainians used British weapons, namely Challenger 2 tanks and drones. “We should be proud to have donated equipment that is helping Ukraine’s defense,” said source in the UK government staff. London believes it will convince allies to help Ukraine more and British society that the country’s security and economic well-being depend on developments on the battlefield.

It is also important for our country that not only Kyiv but also our Western partners are exerting pressure on Washington. First of all, it is London, which the Ukrainian side is courting to take an even more aggressive position on the issue of long-range missiles.

The official position of the British government has not changed: there is a veto on Storm Shadow strikes on Russian Federation. According to The Times, however, London is now trying to persuade its allies (primarily Washington) to authorize Kyiv to launch Storm Shadow strikes deep into Russian territory. The US may have taken its time to assess the impact or consequences of the Ukrainian operation in Russia before making a decision. In doing so, each side is publicly trying to shift responsibility for the decision to the other.

The Telegraph quoted a representative of the Biden administration as saying that the US did not block the UK’s request for Ukraine to use Storm Shadow missiles on the territory of the Russian Federation. Moreover, the article notes that Washington allegedly did not receive an official request from London to grant such permission.

Meanwhile, Politico notes that Ukraine’s successes in the Kursk region have made the White House open to the idea of sending Kyiv JASSM cruise missiles with a range of 450 kilometers, which can be launched from F-16s provided to the Ukrainian army. A final decision has yet to be made, but the Biden administration is working out the intricate details. They include verifying the transfer of sensitive technology and ensuring that our aircraft can launch a missile weighing about 1,000 kilograms carrying a 450-kilogram warhead.

In the case of tanks, airplanes and air defense systems, the West did eventually give Ukraine what it needed. That, however, was too little and too late. “These ponderers will make decisions when we do not need them anymore. Guided aerial bombs are dropped on the Sumy region every day non-stop. And they are pondering,” one of ZN.UA readers wrote in a comment under the news in the Telegram channel that the US is “open” to the idea of sending JASSM missiles to Ukraine.

The Kursk operation showed that Ukraine can win if artificial barriers are not created. The timely transfer of long-range missiles and permission to strike military targets deep into Russian territory increases Ukraine’s chances of winning on the battlefield and bringing peace and stability to Europe.

Read this article in Ukrainian and russian.