Russian military analysts are increasingly alarmed at the prospect of Kyiv receiving formal approval for Western cruise and ballistic missile strikes. In early September, Military Review, a website linked to the Ministry of Defense, warned that potential Ukrainian attacks on Russian military airfields pose a direct threat to the country’s defense capabilities.
The drumbeat to lift the Western ban on the use of its technology on Russian targets has been rising in recent weeks, especially after the “dramatic escalation” of Iran’s provision of ballistic missiles to the Kremlin. President Biden met Britain’s new Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, to discuss the issue on September 13. Reports suggest authorization to use the Anglo-French Storm Shadow cruise missile may come before the end of the month, possibly followed by a similar approval for US Atacms ballistic missiles.
Putin and his aides have made threats of reprisals if the decision is approved, although Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also claimed that the debate over whether the West would allow Ukraine to use Western weapons in Russia was merely a smokescreen. He argued that Ukraine has been conducting such attacks with the silent approval of Western nations for some time.
It’s true that Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian soil are accelerating in number and effect. On the night of September 10, for example, nine Russian regions were hit by a large-scale drone attack. One of the drones crashed into a residential building in Ramenskoye, a Moscow suburb, killing a woman. Many more have hit military targets like airfields and oil refineries.
Western companies like the US big-data analytics firm Palantir have been aiding Ukraine’s drone route planning to skirt Russian air defenses, and Western companies have been investing in Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs.)
The cumulative effects are making the military distinctly uneasy. Analysts are now openly alarmed at the prospect of Kyiv receiving formal approval for such missile strikes. In early September, Military Review warned that potential ballistic missile strikes on military airfields pose a direct threat to the country’s defense capabilities and noted there is precious little defense for a border of 2,000km. Airfields in rear areas could be devastated, it said.
Just a week later, analyst Yevgeny Fedorov from the same site lamented that strikes on Russian territory had become the “new normal,” with even regions beyond the Ural Mountains now offering home insurance against drone strikes. The Military Review author speculated that, after receiving formal approval from Western countries, drone strikes might be jointly launched to achieve simultaneous ballistic and cruise missile attacks on Russian territory.
Fedorov also predicted a steady increase in both the number of drones and their range. The Anglo-French Storm Shadow only has a range of around 350km (about 220 miles), whereas some Ukrainian drones can travel triple the distance.
The same author later explored potential escalation scenarios, such as the mass deployment of Western instructors to the Ukrainian front and a significant surge in Western military aid. As countermeasures, Fedorov proposed targeting “decision-making centers” and “enemy concentration points,” finishing off Ukraine’s critical infrastructure, and “advancing deep into enemy territory” rather than focusing solely on reclaiming Russian land.
Another military expert, Viktor Biryukov, put forward an even more far-reaching scenario, envisioning the “deconstruction of Ukraine” by a supranational globalist government and the deployment of an “international contingent of Western coalition forces” on its territory.
Regardless of the imagined development of events (and some of the analysis is plain silly), all the authors agreed that Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory will not only persist but become significantly more severe, with not enough air defense systems capable of fully stopping them. On patriotic websites, there is growing consensus that victory cannot be achieved without a new wave of mobilization.
The authors argue that those who were mobilized or enlisted under contract during the first year of the war are already “exhausted to the point of collapse,” lacking the good health to stay on the frontlines and needing “clear regulations and limits on the duration of service.” However, “withdrawing the mobilized from the front lines will inevitably lead to a military disaster.”
Their proposed solution is “permanent mobilization” in several waves. Meanwhile, there are increasing calls to ban “celebrations, entertainment, and fireworks” to remind everyone that the country is at war.
Regardless of whether holidays are canceled or another wave of mobilization occurs, the intensifying strikes on Russian territory will make it impossible for people to forget about the war. Additionally, new data clearly indicates that the majority still does not want to hear about the conflict. According to the results of regional elections held in September, veterans of the war in Ukraine secured only 5% of seats in Russian regional parliaments.
It is noteworthy that in the United Russia primaries, the overwhelming majority of candidates who openly identified as “veterans of the special military operation” failed. Their defeat was particularly striking in Moscow, where all 15 military candidates lost the preliminary vote, receiving only a fraction of ballots compared to “civilian” candidates. In the border region of Bryansk, United Russia did not nominate any ex-combatants for the elections. Invasion veterans were only elected in large numbers to two regional legislatures: Tuva and annexed Sevastopol.
Independent journalists have uncovered evidence that the leadership of pro-Kremlin parties is deliberately undermining Vladimir Putin’s call to make war veterans the “new Russian elite.”
For instance, Dmitry Gusev, head of the Moscow branch of the Fair Russia party and a State Duma deputy, replaced an initial list of candidates that included several combat veterans with a list provided by the mayor’s office, which no longer included any. Party members justify their actions by arguing that people do not want to hear about “trenches and gunfire” and prefer politicians who promote a comfortable life.
The election debacle demonstrates that, even if they are not prepared for open dissent, Russians are quite capable of sabotaging uncomfortable decisions made by the authorities. This passive resistance comes not only from ordinary citizens but also from officials. Forcing those who do not want to fight will not be an easy task.
Kseniya Kirillova is an analyst focused on Russian society, mentality, propaganda, and foreign policy. The author of numerous articles for CEPA and the Jamestown Foundation, she has also written for the Atlantic Council, Stratfor, and others.
Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.
