On the night of September 19, Ukraine launched a drone strike on an ammunition depot that lit up the skies west of Moscow. A massive fire erupted, followed by multiple thunderous explosions, shaking a site just 240 miles from the Russian capital. This attack marked a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict, adding to a series of strikes that have rattled Russian territory since Kyiv’s cross-border incursion into the Kursk region on August 6.  Ukrainian intelligence hailed the latest drone attack as a remarkable success, claiming it “wiped off the Russian ammunition depot from the face of the Earth.”. This raises a critical question: if Ukraine can already strike targets deep inside Russia, why is it still pressing for long-range weapons? Furthermore, would Ukraine’s desire to strike Russia’s mainland make a meaningful difference, or could these actions potentially turn the tide of the war in Ukraine’s favor?

Since the Kursk incursion on August 6, Ukraine has targeted Russia’s military, energy, and transport infrastructure, forcing Russia to reposition critical military assets further away from the border. The purpose of the Tver strike and the Kursk operation was likely to signal allies that Ukraine isn’t beaten and its allies aren’t supporting a lost cause. Despite the war dragging, with overwhelming Western support, Ukraine could inflict unprecedented damage on Russia by hitting critical targets deep inside Russian territory. Ukraine’s intent is clear: these strikes aim to cripple Russia’s military capabilities by disrupting its mobilization and logistical support, thus hampering Moscow’s counter-offensive. Tver’s attack carries strategic significance as Ukraine wants immediate victory before winter arrives. Ukraine is strategically targeting Russian military logistics and ammunition depots to cripple Moscow’s supply chains ahead of the harsh winter. Disrupting these vital resources will severely limit Russia’s operational capacity to mobilize and sustain a counter-offensive against Ukraine.

Zelensky wants to present concrete evidence of significant damage to Russia, portraying Ukraine as still capable of victory. If only the West would untie its hands and provide long-range missiles. Ukraine’s leadership is also aware of the political calendar in the West. With U.S. presidential elections looming in November, a shift in the U.S. political landscape particularly with figures like Donald Trump expressing reluctance to extend further military aid could dramatically worsen Ukraine’s situation. Trump has publicly stated that if elected, he would urge Russia and Ukraine to negotiate a peace deal.

Kyiv is pushing to convince its allies that continued support is imperative. In the case of a Peace deal, Kyiv fears involves territorial concessions without guarantees against future Russian aggression. If Ukraine loses territory without a decisive win, Zelensky and his regime would face major setbacks domestically, potentially leading to his regime’s collapse. Therefore, Zelensky is left hunting for aid and weapons, the only thing that could allow him to strike back at Russia and keep his lifeless regime afloat. Ukraine is on life support, hoping for Western military aid to keep its war effort alive. Zelensky aims to inflict unprecedented damage on Russia to pressure it into negotiations, seeing this as the only way Ukraine can end the war on its terms.

Ukraine has targeted Russian military depots with drones, which, while effective, have less destructive capability compared to long-range missiles like the British Storm Shadow, known for its 300 km range and potential to inflict greater damage. As Ukraine intensifies its offensive, Russia has repositioned its military assets beyond the reach of Ukrainian weaponry, Recently, Ukrainian forces struck a Russian S-400 air defense system in Crimea, marking the second significant hit on Russian air defenses in weeks. This pattern suggests broader vulnerabilities within Russia’s defensive infrastructure. As the conflict evolves and Russian assets move deeper into their territory, Ukraine’s demand for long-range weapons becomes increasingly critical. These advanced systems would enhance Ukraine’s ability to disrupt Russian supply lines and operational logistics effectively

Ukraine has been pleading for long-range missiles, with Ambassador Taylor mentioning in a CNN interview, “Long-range missiles would disrupt Russia’s ability to continue its counter-offensive. The ability to strike deep would disrupt their ability to attack Ukraine.” Ukraine is hoping these missiles will act like magic wands, changing the balance of power in their favor.  While Ukraine’s high-profile operations may score temporary tactical wins, they are unlikely to bring a decisive strategic victory. Zelensky acknowledged that Ukraine cannot hold territory in the long term; instead, the goal is to inflict unprecedented damage to gain temporary leverage for negotiations.

The deeper concern is these actions will provoke a massive Russian response, potentially involving advanced hypersonic missiles capable of inflicting devastating damage on Ukraine. Ukraine’s Western allies’ approval of long-range missiles remains a crucial point of contention. Zelensky is pushing hard, but the likelihood of achieving a decisive victory remains slim even with such weapons. The strikes may inflict damage on Russian targets, but they are unlikely to alter the overall course of the war. More likely, they will provoke Russia into further escalation, potentially driving its forces closer to the Polish border.

However, the U.S. has been cautious about granting permission for Ukraine to use American long-range weapons on Russian soil. Washington fears that being seen as directly involved in attacks on Russian territory could provoke Moscow into a dangerous escalation, potentially inviting a broader conflict. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has acknowledged the challenges in sustaining Ukraine’s war effort. More frustrating for Ukrainians is seeing Russia receive a steady supply of critical weapons from Iran and North Korea. As it turns out, Russia has more decisive allies than we do,” said Roman Kostenko, the secretary of the defense and intelligence committee in Ukraine’s parliament. “It’s shameful for the West.”  It raises a serious concern among Ukrainians “Are NATO war efforts for real or are they just shadowboxing?”

The official US stance is stated by US Secretary of Defense Austin “ US officials are concerned they aren’t enough of the long-range missiles to sustain a campaign to have any kind of operational impact at the front lines. Recently, Russia has revised its nuclear doctrine and lowered its threshold. Where the increased probability of using weapons is significantly higher than past (the recent testing of a capable nuclear triad). Putin made the threats more often to keep the West out of the equation to halt the Western flow of technology to Ukraine. This flow of technology is giving Ukraine an edge in conventional operations and causing qualitative conventional asymmetry between Russia and Ukraine. That further creates crisis instability at the conventional level. By issuing these threats he is compelling West not to engage in conflict. Meanwhile, Putin is pursuing strategic coercion and compellence over the West and its allies.

In conclusion, Ukraine’s pursuit of long-range weapons does not align with Zelensky’s vision of a decisive victory. While these weapons could provide temporary leverage, they are unlikely to deliver the decisive impact Ukraine hopes for. The reality on the ground is complicated by Ukraine’s reliance on Western military aid and Russia’s revised nuclear posture, which together create a highly volatile situation. As a result, the conflict appears poised to drag on, with both sides bracing for a protracted and uncertain future.