The Best Defense is a Good Offense: Why Ukraine Must Use Long-Range Weapons to Strike Inside Russia

 

Ukraine's successful incursion into Russia's territory exposes the cracks in Moscow's military might and reveals a vulnerability that must be further exploited with long-range weapons.

Ukraine is hitting back, and Putin must feel like the world’s largest game of whack-a-mole has begun—just as soon as one front settles, another pops up. Ukraine’s recent incursion into Russia’s Kursk and Belgorod regions has made headlines, raising the question: Is it time to give Ukraine the green light to use long-range weapons within Russia? The United States and the West must step up and grant Ukraine the permissions to use long-range weapons on Russian soil. Doing so could significantly change the direction of the war and help bring a just end to this ongoing conflict.

The successful operation led by Ukraine is not only a strategic breakthrough but a psychological one as well. It marks the first time that Russia, a nuclear power, has been invaded since World War II, and it sends a clear message to the Kremlin that Ukraine is not intimidated by its size or military might. But to sustain this momentum, Ukraine needs more than a pat on the back. It needs the tools to keep pushing forward, and that means long-range weapons capable of hitting key Russian targets. Ukraine's military success inside Russian territory demonstrates that they are capable of managing and executing well-planned operations. However, their success could be greatly amplified with Western permission to use these weapons.

Western nations, particularly the United States and Germany, have hesitated to fully support Ukraine’s military ambitions beyond its borders. The argument against permitting long-range attacks into Russia has largely been one of caution—fear of escalation, nuclear retaliation, or dragging NATO directly into the conflict. The U.S. has provided over $43 billion in military aid to Ukraine since the conflict began in February 2022, but this aid has primarily been defensive in nature. What Ukraine needs now is offensive capability. Long-range weapons, such as HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems) and ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile Systems), could enable Ukraine to strike critical military infrastructure deep inside Russia, disrupting supply chains, command centers, and airbases that are currently out of reach.

Let’s take a historical lesson from World War II when the Allies realized that the only way to win the war against Nazi Germany was to take the fight to their homeland. Bombing campaigns that targeted German industrial and military infrastructure were instrumental in weakening Hitler’s war machine. Similarly, the ability to strike inside Russia could weaken Moscow’s resolve, while simultaneously boosting Ukraine’s morale and operational effectiveness. The West should learn from history and not hold back in giving Ukraine the ability to take the fight directly to Russia.

The Ukrainian incursion into Russian territory also reveals something that Western analysts have been reluctant to acknowledge: Russia is vulnerable. The fact that Ukrainian forces were able to push past two lines of Russian defenses in Kursk with little resistance underscores the cracks in Russia’s military might. Despite its nuclear arsenal, Russia’s conventional forces have proven to be less formidable than once thought. It is no secret that Russia’s military has been plagued with logistical issues, corruption, and low morale. Reports of Russian soldiers refusing to fight or deserting their posts have surfaced throughout the war. By allowing Ukraine to use long-range weapons, Western powers could exacerbate these vulnerabilities and force Russia into a defensive posture within its own borders.

Ukraine has already shown it can conduct highly maneuverable operations and avoid the pitfalls of traditional, symmetrical warfare. Attacking where Russia is weakest and performing raids with small, mobile units have been key to their success. But as Ukraine pushes deeper into Russia, the logistical challenges grow more complex. Without the ability to strike Russian supply lines and reinforce their own positions with long-range artillery, Ukraine risks overextending itself. Putin will not sit idly by while Ukrainian forces advance. He will retaliate, and Ukraine must be prepared to defend what it has gained. Long-range weapons would provide the critical support needed to sustain these offensives, protect supply routes, and fend off Russian counterattacks.

Moreover, the argument that long-range attacks on Russian soil could lead to nuclear escalation is often overblown. While Putin frequently rattles his nuclear saber, the reality is that using nuclear weapons would isolate Russia even further on the global stage. China, a key Russian ally, has already voiced concerns over the potential use of nuclear weapons, and it is unlikely that even Russia’s closest partners would stand by Moscow in the event of a nuclear strike. The West, therefore, should not be deterred by Putin’s bluster. Instead, it should focus on providing Ukraine with the military means to defend itself and bring about a just resolution to the conflict.

The West’s reluctance to allow Ukraine to use long-range weapons inside Russia is not only a strategic miscalculation but a moral one as well. Ukraine is fighting for its survival against an aggressor that has shown no regard for international law or human rights. The atrocities committed by Russian forces in Bucha, Mariupol, and other occupied areas are well-documented, and the ongoing missile strikes on civilian infrastructure in Ukraine are a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions. By denying Ukraine the ability to strike back within Russia, the West is effectively tying one hand behind its back.

On the other hand, granting Ukraine permission to use long-range weapons could serve as a deterrent to future Russian aggression. If Ukraine is able to demonstrate that it can strike deep within Russia, it may force Putin to reconsider his long-term strategy and push him to the negotiating table. After all, no leader, no matter how authoritarian, can sustain a war indefinitely if their own homeland is under threat. The cost of war must be felt on both sides, and currently, Russia is shielded from the direct consequences of its actions.

In plain terms, the West must stop dancing around the issue and give Ukraine the tools it needs to end this war on just terms. Long-range weapons are not just a tactical advantage—they are a necessity for Ukraine to defend its sovereignty and bring about peace. After all, in this game of chess, the best defense is a good offense. And perhaps, when this war is finally over, we’ll look back and realize that the West’s reluctance was nothing more than an unnecessary pothole on the road to peace.