Kyiv’s Strategic Imperative and Appeal for Counter-Capability
For Ukraine, the undeniable presence of the 9M-729 on its front lines translates directly into increased risk for its cities and critical infrastructure. The response from Kyiv has been immediate and focused: the acquisition of an equivalent, long-range conventional capability to re-establish a semblance of deterrence.
The Plea for Extended Firepower to Level the Playing Field
For Ukraine, the continued deployment of the nine-M-seven-two-nine serves as a stark, tangible reminder of the significant disparity in long-range strike capabilities that currently exists on the battlefield. In direct response to this demonstrated Russian reach, Kyiv has mounted an urgent diplomatic push, specifically appealing to Washington for the provision of long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles. The strategic rationale underpinning this request is rooted in the specific technical exemptions of the original treaty: the Tomahawk missiles, being primarily sea-launched, were not subject to the restrictions that bound the ground-launched nine-M-seven-two-nine. By acquiring an equivalent or superior long-range sea-based capability, Ukraine believes it can effectively deter or neutralize the strategic advantage Russia gains from employing its INF-banned arsenal.
The logic is based on reciprocal deterrence. If Russia can strike deep behind Ukrainian lines with impunity using the SSC-Eight, Ukraine must gain the ability to hold Russian military production and launch sites—and perhaps even logistics hubs—at risk. The sea-launched nature of the Tomahawk is key here, as it bypasses the specific ground-launch restrictions that currently ensnare the 9M-729. While Ukraine has successfully employed drones and air-launched missiles, the Tomahawk offers a proven, long-range, precision-strike capability that can be deployed from secure waters, offering a direct counterweight to the threat posed by Russian land-based systems.
The Argument that Enhanced Firepower Aids Peace Negotiations
Ukrainian leadership is not merely seeking a retaliatory or reciprocal capability for its own sake; they are presenting the acquisition of advanced long-range weaponry as a necessary prerequisite for advancing any meaningful peace resolution. The official view holds that only by achieving a credible balance of power—specifically by bolstering Ukraine’s own ability to strike deep behind Russian lines—can Moscow be sufficiently persuaded to end its war. In the estimation of Foreign Minister Sybiha, boosting Ukraine’s long-range firepower is a crucial element that will help compel Moscow toward the negotiating table under more favorable terms for Kyiv. This perspective frames the request not as a simple extension of military aid, but as a critical diplomatic lever to force an end to the protracted and destructive conflict by denying one side the unchallenged use of strategic coercion.. Find out more about nine-M-seven-two-nine INF Treaty violation.
As Ukrainian officials have argued, the only way to make the Kremlin take peace talks seriously is to make the cost of continuing the war significantly higher, specifically by taking away Russia’s sanctuary behind its own borders.
Actionable Takeaway for Policy Analysis: When assessing future diplomatic overtures, look for a direct correlation between significant long-range weapon deliveries to Kyiv and any sudden Russian willingness to engage in substantive talks. The logic presented by Kyiv is that force parity, not moral suasion, drives the current endgame.
The situation is complex because, while Ukraine pushes for this parity, the US administration, under President Trump, has publicly expressed reluctance, citing domestic needs for its own US weapon stockpile management. This dynamic—Kyiv demanding the leverage to force peace, and Washington being hesitant to provide it—becomes a central hinge point in the geopolitical maneuvering of late 2025.
The Reaction Across Western Capitals and Defense Circles
The combat use of the 9M-729 and Russia’s broader strategic testing campaign has forced a hard reappraisal of military postures across NATO and in the world’s leading defense think tanks. The quiet assumption that strategic stability could be maintained, even after the INF Treaty’s official demise, has been shattered.
The White House Stance Amidst Renewed Nuclear Scrutiny. Find out more about nine-M-seven-two-nine INF Treaty violation guide.
The American response to the confirmation of the nine-M-seven-two-nine’s combat use has been notably reserved in public pronouncements, with the executive office declining to offer specific commentary or direct responses to inquiries regarding the missile’s deployment or the Ukrainian request for Tomahawk systems. However, the broader administration’s recent actions betray a heightened sense of alarm regarding the evolving strategic environment. In a move that analysts link directly to the emerging threat from Russian weapon testing programs, the President had recently issued an order directing the United States military to resume testing of its own nuclear weapons arsenal. This decision, framed as a necessary measure in response to what is perceived as a breakdown in global strategic restraint, signifies a significant departure from previous non-testing doctrines and directly reflects the anxiety caused by Russia’s actions on the ground in Ukraine.
President Trump announced this order in late October 2025, citing the need for “strategic parity” with Russia and China and stating the process would “begin immediately”. This is a massive policy reversal, effectively ending a pause on actual nuclear explosive testing that has lasted since 1992. This reaction is the most dramatic signal from the West: when Russia fields an INF-banned system and tests next-generation nuclear-powered weapons, the US response is to move toward potentially dismantling decades of global arms control agreements entirely.
It is important to parse the difference in the President’s language: he is ordering the testing of nuclear weapons, a physical detonation, in direct response to Russia’s testing of nuclear-capable (Burevestnik, Poseidon) and already operational treaty-violating (9M-729) systems. This reaction confirms that the stakes have moved beyond the regional conflict and into the realm of top-tier strategic competition, directly mirroring the fears that underpinned the original INF Treaty in the 1980s.
Analysis from Defense Think Tanks and European Security Concerns
Independent defense analysts view the battlefield use of the nine-M-seven-two-nine as confirming their long-held suspicions and underscoring a dangerous regression in international security norms. Experts specializing in long-range weaponry have suggested that this deployment expands Russia’s overall arsenal for striking deep within Ukraine and fits a pattern of Moscow issuing deliberate, threatening signals to Europe concurrently with ongoing peace efforts. One particular concern voiced by analysts is the direct exposure of the European continent; missiles of this range can easily reach significant population centers and infrastructure across the European Union, increasing the perceived threat level for non-combatant nations bordering the conflict zone.
The consensus among observers is that the verifiable combat deployment of a weapon system that previously caused a major treaty collapse marks a potential watershed moment in the history of post-Cold War arms control, signaling a potential free-for-all in strategic weapon development. This isn’t just about Russia; it’s about setting a precedent. If Russia successfully integrates the SSC-Eight into its standard operational playbook without significant, prohibitive consequence beyond diplomatic condemnation, it sends an open invitation to other nations to deploy their own previously restricted, long-range capabilities. The development of US intermediate-range missiles, initially undertaken in response to the 9M-729, now proceeds under a much darker sky.. Find out more about nine-M-seven-two-nine INF Treaty violation tips.
What Analysts Are Watching:
Moscow’s Official Posture and Counter-Narrative. Find out more about nine-M-seven-two-nine INF Treaty violation strategies.
To fully grasp the geopolitical gravity of the 9M-729’s use, one must understand the narrative Moscow uses to frame its actions. It is a story not of violation, but of strategic necessity and justified reciprocity following the West’s own moves.
Absence of Immediate Official Comment and Established Denial of Violations
In the immediate aftermath of the Ukrainian assertions regarding the nine-M-seven-two-nine usage, the Russian Ministry of Defense has maintained a position of non-engagement, at least regarding direct, immediate replies to written requests for comment on the matter. This silence can be interpreted within the broader context of Moscow’s historical response to allegations concerning the missile system. Russia has consistently and firmly denied the American and Western accusations that the nine-M-seven-two-nine development or deployment constituted a violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty’s terms. Their long-standing counter-narrative has always maintained that the weapon’s range falls within acceptable parameters, suggesting that the United States’ withdrawal was politically motivated rather than based on factual non-compliance.
Furthermore, Russia has long accused the US of violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the original treaty by deploying Aegis Ashore sites in Europe, which Moscow claims can launch Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles—a charge the US denies. This historical defense mechanism provides the scaffolding for their current position: any action is merely a response to Western provocation, not a proactive violation of a defunct agreement.
Contextualizing the Deployment within the Broader Strategic Declaration
Any official justification for the missile’s use, should it come, would likely be framed within the context of justifying the August two-thousand-twenty-five decision to formally renounce their “self-imposed restrictions” on deploying such missile classes. Russia’s perspective is that the treaty’s collapse, precipitated by the US withdrawal in two-thousand-nineteen, nullified any previous voluntary restraint on their part, thereby permitting the full operational deployment of all developed weapon systems. Therefore, the combat use of the nine-M-seven-two-nine in Ukraine would be presented not as a treaty violation—since the treaty is already defunct in their view—but as a necessary demonstration of military capability in the face of perceived Western escalation and continued military support for Kyiv. This frames the action as a necessary strategic countermeasure rather than a first-strike violation of an existing agreement.. Find out more about Nine-M-seven-two-nine INF Treaty violation overview.
It is a crucial distinction in international law and perception. Moscow views the current situation as a return to strategic competition unburdened by the 1987 agreement. The end of their moratorium in August 2025 was the green light; the combat use of the 9M-729 in October/November 2025 is the proof of concept. They are effectively communicating that the rules they are accused of breaking are no longer on the books, and the actions of their adversaries (like the announced resumption of US nuclear testing) justify their full spectrum of military modernization.
The Future Security Calculus and Arms Control’s Uncertain Horizon
With the 9M-729 on the battlefield and the US announcing a return to nuclear testing, the strategic architecture that defined the post-Cold War era is dissolving rapidly. The world is faced with a stark choice: negotiate entirely new guardrails or descend into an unconstrained race for strategic advantage.
The Re-Emergence of INF-Range Weapons on the European Battlefield
The confirmed reintroduction of INF-range missiles into active combat deployment fundamentally alters the risk assessment for long-term European security. For nearly three decades following the historic agreement, the continent was largely free of the threat posed by ground-launched missiles capable of striking targets across vast distances within a short flight time, a stability that the treaty guaranteed. The current situation effectively erases that buffer, pushing the region conceptually back toward a more precarious Cold War-era strategic posture where short-warning, high-impact strikes become a more immediate possibility. Analysts are now seriously considering that this event could trigger a new, unconstrained arms race, as nations potentially accelerate the development of similar, previously restricted delivery systems to counter this newly demonstrated capability.
The inherent danger of this class of weapon—the short flight time—means decision-makers have mere minutes to confirm a launch, increasing the potential for catastrophic escalation based on false alarms. The 9M-729’s operational debut means that every nation within its 2,500 km reach—which covers virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe—must now factor this short-warning threat into their defense planning. This is a world without the buffer the INF Treaty provided.. Find out more about SSC-Eight ground-launched cruise missile specifications definition guide.
Pressures for New International Dialogue on Strategic Limits
The sheer destabilizing effect of this combat deployment is likely to force a reckoning among global powers regarding the future of strategic arms control agreements. While Ukraine is pressing for immediate military parity through the supply of advanced conventional weapons, the longer-term consequence may necessitate renewed, albeit extremely difficult, international negotiations. The deployment demonstrates that existing frameworks are insufficient to manage technological advances and renewed great-power competition. The international community, facing the tangible reality of a banned weapon system being used against a sovereign nation, may find itself compelled to engage in discussions aimed at establishing novel, verifiable limits on intermediate-range and shorter-range missile systems, lest the current situation usher in an era of unchecked strategic proliferation. This challenging environment demands a comprehensive re-evaluation of what constitutes acceptable strategic armament in the current geopolitical climate.
What You Can Do To Stay Informed: Follow the developments around the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) review process, as this topic will inevitably dominate the agenda for any future discussions on strategic stability. Understanding the nuances of nuclear nonproliferation treaty 2025 talks will be essential to tracking where this crisis leads next.
Conclusion: The New Era of Unconstrained Capability
The November 2025 reality is stark: The nine-M-seven-two-nine, or SSC-Eight, is no longer a theoretical violation; it is a tested, fielded, and actively deployed weapon system used by Russia in a major European conflict. Its estimated 2,500 km range confirms it as the very reason the United States walked away from the INF Treaty in 2019. Russia’s August renunciation of its self-imposed deployment moratorium, coupled with late-October tests of its nuclear-powered ‘super-weapons,’ signals a clear pivot toward unconstrained strategic competition.
The primary, actionable takeaway for observers is the immediate and urgent strategic demand from Kyiv for long-range Tomahawk missiles as a necessary condition for leveling the battlefield and compelling negotiations. The secondary, yet arguably more alarming, consequence is the US administration’s directive to immediately resume **nuclear weapons testing**, a direct reaction to Moscow’s escalation. We have moved from an era of negotiated constraints to one of high-stakes, action-reaction signaling across the strategic domain.
Key Takeaways for the Coming Months:
What’s your take on this new reality? Does the confirmed use of the 9M-729 finally justify the US response to resume nuclear testing, or does it demand an immediate, unified diplomatic front demanding a return to verifiable limits on intermediate-range weapons? Share your analysis below—the future of European security depends on understanding these complex calculus shifts.