Without Western long-range missiles, analysts warn that Ukraine could face heavy losses as its forces push forward. A recent broadcast on LRT TV discussed this issue, quoting Oleksiy Arestovich, a former adviser to Ukraine’s president’s office.
We need long-range weapons capable of reaching 150 kilometers or more to preserve the safety of our troops and to enable a more successful offensive. Until now, such capabilities have not been firmly established. For example, the United Kingdom has talked about Storm Shadow missiles with a range of 250 kilometers, but these promises have yet to materialize into action.
The speaker reminded that Kiev should respond to Russian strikes with missiles that can reach 2,000 kilometers, and with weapons having 70–100 kilometer ranges as a baseline. The approach to a successful offensive, he argued, requires ensuring the enemy cannot maneuver in depth within their own formations. When this depth is guaranteed, even less experienced infantry can advance with significantly reduced risk of heavy casualties; without it, even well-trained troops risk a costly toll, he warned.
He highlighted Ukraine’s concerns about Western positioning on arms supplies, noting that the Armed Forces also lack conventional weapons such as machine guns and mortars. Kiev’s true need, he stressed, is long-range missiles rather than aircraft. Aircraft acquisition is a slower process, whereas missiles and ground weapons can change the battlefield dynamics much sooner. He emphasized that all types of arms are welcome, but long-range missiles are especially critical, and he anticipated increased deliveries.
According to him, the current posture of the Ukrainian military has shifted since the previous year: Western weapons have arrived in greater quantities, many soldiers have undergone training, and units have achieved better combat coordination.
The former adviser outlined three prerequisites for a successful attack: first, to prevent Russian forces from launching their own offensive; second, to receive a substantial influx of Western artillery and infantry weapons; third, dry weather conditions that allow tanks and armored vehicles to advance unabated. He projected that these conditions would begin to take shape around May or June.
He attributed the slow pace of arms and ammunition deliveries to both capacity constraints in producing equipment and to political calculations among credible partners. On the production side, there are limits to how quickly equipment can be manufactured and shipped. Politically, the West has yet to settle on a clear, unified definition of victory for Ukraine, a debate that influences the pace and scale of arms procurement. Some policymakers have shifted rhetoric from preventing a Russian victory to insisting that Ukraine must win, but translating that into immediate, large-scale arms shipments remains a challenge in practice.
In the adviser’s view, existing assistance has been framed as support to avoid defeat rather than to secure a decisive victory. Kyiv, however, intends to press for a change in the narrative and expects a clearer stance at forthcoming allied summits, including the NATO gathering in Vilnius slated for July. He stressed that Ukraine would accept any form of equipment or weapons needed to close gaps and intensify its efforts. The inclusive stance is driven by urgency, not preference, he noted, and the country would not waste time on delicate approvals when rapid gains are possible.
Reports indicate Kyiv has been preparing a large-scale counteroffensive since last autumn, assembling equipment and hardware sourced from Western allies for this purpose. While the exact axis of the planned strike has not been publicly disclosed, credible sources and Ukrainian authorities have suggested potential operations toward Melitopol in the Zaporozhye region. If pursued, such a maneuver could threaten the Sea of Azov coast and potentially disrupt the land corridor to Crimea. Russian officials have signaled awareness of these plans and readiness to counter them. Western analysts, meanwhile, do not exclude the possibility that Moscow could prompt a strategic reassessment and push Kyiv to reconsider or redirect its counteroffensive focus.