Everything to Know About How Long-Range Missiles Might Impact the Ukraine-Russia War

In recent weeks, Kyiv’s allies, particularly the United States and Britain, have appeared increasingly open to the notion of letting Ukraine use long-range missile systems supplied by the West to strike targets deep inside Russia.
Geopolitical implications aside, some experts believe that, given current realities on the battlefield, such a scenario is unlikely to turn the tide of the conflict in Ukraine’s favor.
“Russia is making advances, slow but relatively steady advances, in the east,” Robert Peters, a defense policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, told The Epoch Times.
According to Peters, who specializes in nuclear deterrence and missile defense, hard-pressed Ukrainian forces must first “overcome Russian advances, and then—ideally—stop them, before they begin pushing them back.”
Asked if the use of Western long-range missile systems would be enough to achieve this, Peters said: “The short answer is ‘no’.”
For the past several weeks, Russian forces have made gains on the eastern front, especially in Donetsk, where they recently captured a string of villages.
They now appear poised to take the town of Pokrovsk, a key Ukrainian transit hub, the fall of which is expected to lead to further Russian advances westward.
In hopes of turning back the advance, Kyiv has continued to urge its Western allies to lift a longstanding ban on the Ukrainian military’s use of long-range missile systems to hit targets in Russia.
“We need to have this long-range capability—not only on the occupied territory of Ukraine but also on Russian territory,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said earlier this month at a meeting of Kyiv’s allies in Germany.
Kyiv is particularly keen to employ the American-built ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System), which is launched from the ground, and the United Kingdom-manufactured Storm Shadow missile system, which is typically fired from an aircraft.
According to Abdullah Agar, a Turkish military expert, the most advanced versions of these two systems can deliver “highly accurate strikes” at distances of more than 300 miles.
The considerably longer reach these systems afford would bring several high-value military targets—located inside Russian territory—well within striking range.
In recent remarks to the U.S. media, Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov said that several military airfields in Russia fall within range of the advanced missile systems.
According to Peters, there are several “attractive” military targets in Russia, the destruction of which “could make a difference on the battlefield.”
“What would make the most sense for Ukrainian long-range fires is to go after Russia’s ability to produce its own offensive weapon systems,” Peters, who previously worked for the Defense Department as a civilian policy analyst, said.
“I would suggest they go after those factories that produce drones and long-range fires, and then some weapons storage sites,” he added, noting that several Russian storage depots were located at or near airbases.

Washington has thus far refrained from greenlighting Ukrainian “deep strikes” into Russia, fearing an escalation of the conflict.
In June, the White House adjusted its policy to allow Ukraine to conduct limited cross-border strikes with U.S.-supplied weapons systems.
“The Ukrainians can use U.S. security assistance to defend themselves from cross-border attacks,” a Pentagon spokesman said last month.
“But as it relates to long-range strikes—deep strikes into Russia—our policy has not changed,” he added.
According to Agar, Kyiv’s primary backers have thus far employed a “mouse-bite” approach with the aim of “testing Moscow’s sensitivities and reactions.”
“Until now, this approach has been largely confined to within Ukraine’s borders,” Agar, a retired Special Forces officer, told The Epoch Times.
“But now they’re talking about deep strikes into Russia, which is making Moscow very nervous,” he added.
Such a strategy “comes with enormous risks,” Agar said, “including the possible use of nuclear weapons.”
The Kremlin, for its part, has not minced words, saying the move would be tantamount to an act of war.
“It will mean NATO countries—the United States and European countries—are at war with Russia,” Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters last week.
Despite the warnings, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and David Lammy, his UK counterpart, have both signaled a readiness to give Kyiv the green light.
“We have adjusted and adapted … as the battlefield has changed,” Blinken said on a recent visit to Kyiv.
“I have no doubt that we’ll continue to do that,” Blinken added, speaking to reporters alongside Lammy and Ukraine’s foreign minister.
Some commentators, including Putin himself, have claimed that Ukraine’s military lacks the ability to use advanced long-range missile systems without targeting assistance from its Western allies.
Asked to comment on the assertion, Peters said without elaborating: “Some speculate they’re already getting assistance from allies on targeting.”
As of publication, the Pentagon’s press office had yet to respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment on the issue.
Peters also dismissed concerns that the long-range missile systems in question could prove ineffective against Russia’s formidable air defenses.
“For years, the West has been concerned about Russia’s integrated missile-defense systems,” he said, pointing to the S-300 and S-400 systems in particular.
“The S-300 and S-400 are capable systems,” Peters asserted. “But they’re not the badass systems we thought they were for so long.”
So while Russian air-defense capabilities “should not be dismissed,” he said, “the Ukrainians penetrate them on a daily basis.”
“A lot of the long-range fires, particularly those with a ballistic trajectory, are doing quite well against Russian missile defenses,” Peters added.
If Kyiv is given permission to carry out deep strikes, he said, “I’m confident that a number of those would be able to reach their targets.”
Asked about the issue on Sept. 6, U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin expressed doubt that “one specific capability will be decisive.”
“Ukraine has a pretty signific
ant capability of its own to address targets that are well beyond the range of ATACMS or even Storm Shadows,” he told reporters.
The following week, Pentagon spokesman Charlie Dietz pointed out that the highest-value Russian targets were outside the ATACMS’ strike range.
Dietz also described existing stocks of ATACMS missiles, which can cost up to $1.5 million each (depending on the variant), as “finite.”
Given the high costs involved and the limited inventories, he added: “We need to be judicious about where and when they are deployed.”
According to Peters, Kyiv’s Western allies, including the United States, simply don’t have enough long-range missiles—and missile systems—to give Ukraine without depleting their own fighting abilities.
“The West is running low on long-range precision fires,” he said.
“The Pentagon is saying—correctly—that we have to husband some of these long-range precision fires for use in other parts of the world, i.e., China,” he added.
Peters went on to note a “real concern” in Washington about a potential conflict with China, which has drawn ever closer to Russia since 2002 when the latter launched its initial invasion of Ukraine.
“If we expend all our long-range fires in Ukraine—or against the Houthis [in Yemen] or wherever—we won’t have enough magazine depth to prosecute a conflict with China,” Peters said.
“That’s why we’ve seen some hesitancy on the part of the Pentagon and some European nations to give Ukraine massive quantities of long-range fires,” he added.
According to the defense policy analyst, some of this hesitancy is also due to the fact that, since 2022, “we’ve been expending those munitions faster than we can replace them.”