Next week, an already very public debate over whether Ukraine should be allowed to use long-range Western-supplied missiles on Russian soil will come under an even brighter international spotlight.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is set to meet not only US President Joe Biden, who has signaled he is open to discussing the issue, but also likely both US presidential candidates on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.
Those meetings come as experts say the public wrangling on this topic has raised the stakes of the decision, and potentially shifted the role these missiles – the Franco-British Storm Shadow/Scalps and US-made Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) – might play in this expanding war.
It was almost exactly a year ago, also during an in-person meeting with Zelensky in the United States, that Biden made the decision to supply the ATACMS to Ukraine.
More importantly, he believes that if Ukraine could strike Russian troops, weaponry and logistics within the 300-kilometer range of the top-end ATACMS, it would for the first time force Russia to calculate the risks of moving large amounts of troops and equipment into Ukraine.
US expected to announce major Ukraine weapons package but delay shipments due to concerns over Pentagon stockpiles
The news did leak out, but official confirmation only came a month later, Zelensky burying it at the end of a nightly address on October 18. “Our agreements with President Biden are being implemented,” he said. “And they are being implemented very accurately – ATACMS have proven themselves.” By that point the missiles had, according to US officials, already been used in several strikes on Russian-occupied Luhansk and the southern coastal town of Berdiansk.
A few months earlier, a similar story played out with the British Storm Shadows when then-Defence Secretary Ben Wallace only confirmed they had been supplied once they were already in use. In both cases, Ukraine promised not to use them on Russian territory.
This September, Zelensky is employing a strategy of more openly challenging his allies, and that, combined with Russia’s open threats that any lifting of restrictions on their use would mean war with NATO, has turned the issue of firing these missiles into Russia into a political touchstone, an ultimate determinant of the extent of Western support.
Zelensky has refused to allow the topic to fall out of the headlines – publicly criticizing his allies’ hesitation after a Russian strike on a military educational facility in Poltava killed more than 50 people earlier this month.
“Every day of delay is, unfortunately, the death of people,” he said.
Last weekend, after a Russian bomb attack on an apartment block in Kharkiv, he even made veiled accusations of cowardice, 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,” said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, a think-tank in London. “He’s almost playing political chicken. He’s kind of daring people to support him.” If it happens though, the political dividend would be significant, says Savill, blunting Russian rhetoric and “demonstrating firm international support” for Ukraine.
As for the battlefield dividend, that, experts say, is less clear cut.
Opinion is divided on the extent to which the public debate around the missile permissions has blunted their potential utility – especially when it comes to targeting Russian fighter jets and missiles before they can be used against Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure. US intelligence believes 90% of Russian aircraft that launch deadly glide bombs (at least 100 per day, according to Zelensky), are more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) from Ukrainian-controlled territory, so outside of ATACMS range. And that number may be increasing. Russia recently relocated planes from two bases near the border further east, according to one US official.
Savill agrees “lots of the juiciest targets” have likely been moved deeper into Russian territory, meaning the impact on the war may be “limited.” But that doesn’t mean the missiles have no utility. Storm Shadows, designed to penetrate deep into concrete, could be effective against military headquarters, or ammunition stores, many of which are still in range. ATACMS, some of which have cluster warheads, could be used to do significant damage to airfields. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a think-tank in Washington DC, has calculated that 15 Russian airfields are in range of ATACMs (though it’s not clear how many aircraft are still housed on them).
George Barros, the author of that ISW research, agrees a less public debate may have been preferable, but if the very prospect of these permissions being granted has forced Russia to move aircraft further from the border, it’s a good thing. It could reduce the number of bombing missions Russian planes can make (known in the military as the “sortie rate”) and buy Ukraine valuable detection and reaction time for incoming attacks.
full-scale invasion in February 2022. And some of the newest targets of all could, according to Savill, include Iranian FATH-360 ballistic missiles, which the US believes have already been supplied and have a range of just 75 kilometers (47 miles), far less than the Western missiles.
Experts also agree the missiles could provide valuable support to Ukraine’s drone and ground operations. Savill believes ATACMS could do serious damage to Russian air defense radars and systems, adding that “if you punch a hole through, actually Ukrainian long-range drones have got better options to penetrate deeper into Russia.” Hitting Russian air defense systems in the border areas could also improve Ukraine’s chances of retaking its own territory, said Barros.
The debate surrounding Ukraine’s use of long-range Western missiles, particularly the Franco-British Storm Shadow/Scalps and the US-made Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS), has taken on significant political and strategic implications. As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky prepares to meet with US President Joe Biden and possibly both US presidential candidates at the UN General Assembly in New York, the spotlight on this issue is intensifying. The meetings come at a critical time, as discussions over whether Ukraine should be allowed to use these powerful weapons on Russian soil have grown more public and politically charged. The use of such missiles has the potential to redefine the role they play in Ukraine’s ongoing war with Russia.
A year ago, during another meeting between Zelensky and Biden in the United States, the decision to supply ATACMS to Ukraine was made. The rationale behind the decision was straightforward: allowing Ukraine to strike Russian troops, logistics, and weapons within the 300-kilometer range of the ATACMS could force Russia to reconsider moving large amounts of troops and equipment into Ukrainian territory. Though the decision was initially kept quiet, official confirmation came a month later in October 2023, after ATACMS had already been used in several strikes on Russian-occupied Luhansk and the southern town of Berdiansk. Similarly, the delivery of British Storm Shadow missiles followed a similar pattern, with confirmation only coming after they were already in use on the battlefield.
Ukraine had initially promised not to use these weapons on Russian territory, but Zelensky has recently taken a more aggressive stance on the issue. Following a devastating Russian strike on a military facility in Poltava, which killed more than 50 people, Zelensky publicly criticized his allies for their hesitation to lift restrictions on the use of the missiles. In a powerful statement, he lamented that “every day of delay is, unfortunately, the death of people,” signaling his frustration with the slow pace of Western decision-making. The Ukrainian president’s determination to keep the issue in the headlines and his increasingly bold criticism of his allies are part of a strategy to rally stronger international support.
Zelensky’s stance has drawn mixed reactions from military experts and political analysts. Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), characterized Zelensky’s strategy as politically risky. According to Savill, Zelensky is engaging in a form of political brinksmanship by daring his Western allies to back him more fully, but he believes that if Zelensky succeeds, it will send a strong message of international solidarity to Russia. At the same time, some argue that the ongoing public debate about missile permissions has diminished their potential battlefield utility, as it may have given Russia time to reposition key military assets further away from the range of these missiles.
U.S. intelligence reports suggest that as much as 90% of Russian aircraft launching deadly glide bombs against Ukrainian civilian infrastructure are now stationed more than 300 kilometers from Ukrainian-controlled territory, placing them out of the ATACMS’ current range. Moreover, Russia has recently relocated planes from two bases near the Ukrainian border to locations further east, making them even harder to target. This has raised questions about the overall effectiveness of the long-range missiles, even if restrictions on their use are lifted.
Despite these concerns, experts believe that the Storm Shadows and ATACMS still have significant military utility. The Storm Shadow, designed to penetrate hardened targets like military headquarters or ammunition stores, can still be highly effective against Russian infrastructure, even if some of the “juiciest” targets have moved deeper into Russian territory. Similarly, some ATACMS variants equipped with cluster warheads could cause extensive damage to Russian airfields. The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has identified 15 Russian airfields that remain within the ATACMS range, although it is unclear how many aircraft are still housed at these facilities.
George Barros, an expert with the ISW, suggests that the public debate over these missile permissions, while not ideal, has still had strategic advantages. The very possibility that Ukraine might be allowed to use these long-range missiles has forced Russia to relocate aircraft farther from the front lines. This could reduce the frequency of Russian bombing missions, buying Ukraine more time to detect and respond to incoming attacks. In the military, this is known as reducing the “sortie rate,” and it could be a significant benefit for Ukraine.
There are also indications that the ATACMS and Storm Shadows could help Ukraine counter new Russian threats. Recent intelligence suggests that Russia has begun deploying Iranian FATH-360 ballistic missiles, which have a much shorter range than the Western-supplied missiles. These missiles could become priority targets for Ukrainian forces, especially since their limited range makes them a more immediate threat to Ukrainian positions.
Beyond their direct military impact, these long-range missiles could also bolster Ukraine’s drone and ground operations. Matthew Savill argues that ATACMS could be used to destroy Russian air defense radars and systems, creating opportunities for Ukraine’s long-range drones to penetrate deeper into Russian territory. Disrupting Russian air defenses near the border could also improve Ukraine’s chances of regaining control of occupied areas, a crucial objective for Kyiv as it seeks to reclaim lost territory.
As Ukraine and its Western allies continue to grapple with the question of missile use, the political and military stakes are only growing higher. Zelensky’s determination to push for expanded permissions reflects both his frustration with the pace of Western support and his belief that Ukraine cannot afford to wait while Russian forces continue their assaults. Meanwhile, Russia’s threats of escalation if Ukraine is allowed to strike Russian territory have made the issue a critical test of the West’s resolve to support Ukraine. Whether the eventual decision to lift restrictions on missile use will have a decisive impact on the battlefield remains uncertain, but the debate has already reshaped the political landscape of the war and could influence the future of Western support for Ukraine.
