Long-range missiles to hit Russia: Where does NATO stand on Ukraine demand?

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is engaged in his largest push yet to get more long-range Western missiles along with the permission to use them deep inside Russian territory.

He has said he would present Ukraine’s “victory plan” to United States President Joe Biden at the White House on Wednesday, followed by meetings with presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

Trump’s plan for ending the war – which he has claimed he can do even before entering office in January in case of a victory in November – has been outlined by his running mate JD Vance, and mostly resembles Moscow’s vision, rather than Kyiv’s.

The Ukrainian effort comes as NATO remains divided on aspects of its approach to the war with Russia, particularly on the use of long-range weapons that could escalate the conflict.

Ukraine is already using long-range missiles, fighter aircraft and other high-grade weaponry provided by its Western allies to hit Russian targets in Crimea and other occupied areas inside Ukraine.

What’s the ‘victory plan’?

Zelenskyy has not yet provided any details about the plan, but has said he hopes it will bring a “just end of Russian aggression against Ukraine”.

The Ukrainian leader, who also spoke at the United Nations Summit of the Future on Monday, has said he wishes to convince Kyiv’s allies to drop their reluctance about the use of missiles to hit Russian assets outside Ukraine, insisting that “we are closer to the end of the war” than might be expected.

During my participation in the plenary session of the Summit of the Future, I highlighted that the world needs a peaceful future and sustainable development.

We are currently preparing for the second Peace Summit, moving forward step by step with our partners according to the… pic.twitter.com/bEQCw4sqOS

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) September 23, 2024

Zelenskyy’s approach over the course of the war so far has also consisted of pushing for broader military and financial support, securing NATO membership, stressing the need to reclaim all Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia as a non-negotiable demand for peace, and advocating for more sanctions against Russia.

Other key elements in Ukraine’s demands have revolved around holding Russian leaders accountable for alleged war crimes and ensuring nuclear safety.

Ukrainian armed forces made an incursion into Russia’s Kursk in early August to disrupt supply lines and divert troops from the front lines in eastern Ukraine. Russia has mounted a counteroffensive to recapture its territory while maintaining its push into Ukraine.

Why are the missiles such a big deal?

From the US, Ukraine wants more of the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). The system can shoot ballistic missiles that can carry cluster munitions up to a range of 300km (190 miles).

This means that they can hit Russian military bases and runways from which Moscow launches attacks against Ukrainian bases, along with towns and cities and energy infrastructure.

The Storm Shadow missiles of the United Kingdom, which are cruise missiles launched from aircraft, are also capable of reaching targets deep inside Russia as they boast a range of up to 250km (155 miles). The French equivalent of these missiles, known as Scalp, has similar capabilities.

Ukraine’s demands come as the Western allies have formally accused Iran of supplying Russia with short-range ballistic missiles that it can potentially use on the front lines within weeks, leading to new sanctions on Tehran. Iran denies arming Russia for the war.

The ATACMS can carry cluster munitions to hit Russian bases and aircraft [Sgt 1st Class Andrew Dickson/US Army via AP]

If Ukraine’s demands on the missiles are accepted, it would primarily have an effect on areas within about 200km (124 miles) of the front lines in Ukraine, with most likely targets including logistics hubs like fuel or ammunition sites, command and control locations, troop assembly areas, transport choke points, airfields and naval bases, according to Justin Crump, CEO of risk intelligence company Sibylline and former British army officer.

“The heightened risk of attack over a larger area would force Russian defences to be spread more thinly, necessitate the dispersion of logistics chains into smaller locations and packets for movement, and increase the time that Russian aircraft take for combat sorties,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Russia can work around all this, but in a relatively evenly matched struggle, interdiction of command and supply will have disproportionate impacts. We have seen this already inside Ukrainian territory, but removing the ‘safe space’ for the Russian military over the border has long been a desire for Kyiv.”

Where does NATO stand on missile sharing?

Some NATO officials have backed Ukraine’s bid to receive more long-range missiles and use them on Russian soil, chief among them outgoing Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.

Finland’s President Alexander Stubb has urged NATO and the US to provide Ukraine with long-range missiles for use inside Russia, with the Czech Republic also saying it does not believe Ukraine should face any restrictions over the use of Western-provided weapons.

Meanwhile, the US and the UK have said they are considering the idea. Zelenskyy has confirmed that no green light has been given yet by the major powers arming Kyiv.

The main concern is that the war could considerably escalate since Moscow has explicitly warned that using the missiles inside Russia would be tantamount to NATO directly entering the conflict.

Robert David English, associate professor of international foreign policy and defence analysis at the University of Southern California (USC), said he is fairly certain that Ukraine will not get authorisation to use Western missiles on economic targets such as oil refineries and seaports.

“Those would cause many civilian casualties, and NATO may fear that Ukraine will be reckless or seek to widen the conflict and draw NATO in more directly,” he told Al Jazeera.

Germany has firmly refused to supply its Taurus long-range missiles to Ukraine, reflecting broader caution in Berlin about escalating. The low-flying cruise missile has a range of 500km (310 miles) and is suitable for hitting buried or protected targets. The air-launched projectile would be the strongest Western missile to be used by Ukraine if Germany later decides to rethink its cautious approach.

A general view of the Taurus cruise missile of Europe’s multinational developer and manufacturer of missiles MBDA at their headquarters, in Schrobenhausen near Munich, Germany, March 5, 2024 [Angelika Warmuth/Reuters]

Most other NATO allies have opted to refrain from adopting a clear-cut public position on whether the missiles should be used inside Russia, likely due to the sensitivity of the issue.

Some of the most important among this group are France and Italy, which are partners in manufacturing the UK’s Storm Shadow missiles, which use US-made guidance systems. All four countries must consent before the missiles can be used at their maximum range.

Turkey, for its part, has continued to pursue an approach that maintains links with both sides of the war. Ankara has supplied Ukraine with armed drones, armoured vehicles and other military aid, including tactical gear, but has not supported a more aggressive stance, even offering to host peace talks.

How would Putin respond if Ukraine got the long-range missiles?

The USC’s English said authorisation to use the missiles inside Russia would signal a “major escalation” and that NATO members are concerned Russian President Vladimir Putin would not overlook this crossing of a “red line” as he has others.

“Russia could counter-escalate in a number of ways, from more brutal attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets to sabotage of Western satellite or undersea communications,” he said, adding that Moscow already believes NATO has entered the war as it arms and trains Ukrainians and provides intelligence.

“In fact, by the laws of war, this targeting support already makes the United States a combatant in the war because we are directly facilitating armed attacks. Now the US either denies or simply doesn’t comment on that part of their aid to Ukraine, but we all know that Ukraine doesn’t possess a fleet of intelligence satellites or high-altitude surveillance drones. So it’s not like NATO would be going from hand’s-off to involved, it’s just an increasing degree of involvement.”

But Sibylline’s Crump said Russia is trying to undermine Western support for Ukraine and sow hesitation and concern among Ukraine’s allies with repeated threats about red lines and talk that it considers to be fighting all of NATO.

“Ultimately, the Kremlin knows it is not fighting all of NATO, nor could it afford to. Instead the strategy is to divide, confuse, and disrupt without entering open conflict. Undermining the alliance and paralysing decision making is the intent, with the nuclear factor making this a more charged situation,” the former British army officer said.

“This is something Russia consistently exploits in its information warfare efforts, but the threat is therefore wearing thin. While an uptick in harassment, acts of sabotage, and societal aggression in Western nations might be the result of further support for Ukraine, the Russian threats currently say more about the weakness rather than the strength of their position.”

And if NATO does decide to share long-range missiles with Ukraine to strike deep into Russia, Moscow cannot claim to be a victim of escalation, Crump said, pointing to Russia’s sourcing of missiles from North Korea and allegedly from Iran. “They [Russia] themselves opened the door to this move,” he said.