• The US plans to deploy long-range weapons in Europe and its allies are expanding their arsenals.
• According to a nuclear weapons expert, the war in Ukraine has opened “Pandora’s box” of these possibilities.
• NATO and Russia are entering dangerous territory, with the risk of escalation.

In the brutal war against Ukraine, Russia has used theater ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones for one-way attacks to bomb Ukrainian cities. It has now been recognized that Russia could fight the West with the capabilities that the West has let wane.

The impact of these deep attacks was an eye-opener for Europe and the US, “Opening Pandora’s box” for more of these possibilities, one nuclear weapons and arms control expert told Business Insider. New weapons and deployments are coming, raising concerns about an escalation not seen since the Cold War.

Earlier this month, the US and several NATO allies announced several plans regarding long-range strikes.

First, the US said it would deploy new long-range weapons to Germany starting in 2026 with episodic deployments “as part of planning for the sustainable deployment of these capabilities into the future.” The conventional weapons include SM-6, Tomahawk and hypersonic weapons in development, “which have significantly greater ranges than current land-based weapons in Europe.”

Not long after, several European countries signed a joint initiative to develop new ground-launched cruise missiles. At the time, French Defense Minister Sebastien Lecornu said it was “clearly a segment we don’t have.” Poland, Germany and Italy also signed on to the plan and said they planned to bring in more allies.

The plans signal that the U.S. and some of its biggest European allies are all-in on long-range weapons, and some officials are directly attributing the moves to what’s happening on the battlefield in Ukraine. “The war in Ukraine shows that long-range strikes are a key point for defending Europe,” Lecornu posted on X.

The war exposed Europe’s vulnerabilities and shortcomings in the face of Russian aggression.

“These countries knew that long-range weapons were important before Russia invaded Ukraine. But Russia’s war in Ukraine has opened Pandora’s box for more and more military moves,” said Hans, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists.

Conventional long-range strike capabilities are useful for striking targets deep inside enemy territory. They can make a big difference operationally and strategically, especially when used to cut off enemy logistics and command centers. Their presence is threatening enough to potentially deter aggression.

One challenge is that these weapons systems risk escalation, both in their presence and in their use. There is a risk of “tit-for-tat escalation posture,” Kristensen said. Moreover, these weapons can be used at any time and can cause confusion for a nuclear power that is uncertain about the payload.

For decades, the US-Russia INF Treaty banned the development of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 km to 5,500 km to prevent either side from escalating tensions into full-fledged conflict. The treaty was a major milestone in keeping these weapons off the European continent, but the US withdrew from it in 2019 after accusing Moscow of violating the 1987 pact by developing, testing and deploying the SSC-8/9M729 missile system.

Moscow denied the allegations and later withdrew from the treaty, giving both sides an opportunity to accelerate development of new missiles.

Deep attack weapons

The new long-range missile plans from Poland, Germany, France and Italy follow work in the US to rapidly develop new long-range strike systems. The US tested its first previously banned missile in the same month it withdrew from the INF Treaty.

Of the systems being worked on, Typhon, which uses a ground launcher to fire the Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) and the Tomahawk, is the highest priority. The Army’s Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon is also in development, but has been plagued by delays and funding issues.

The efforts within Europe to develop new long-range weapon systems represent a significant shift in thinking. For decades, European states ignored the larger shift toward a need for stand-off deep-strike capabilities, the scaling back of surface-to-surface missile programs, and increased defense spending across the board.

At this point, with concerns about further Russian aggression against NATO members high and the conflict in Ukraine continuing with no end in sight, “the defense hawks and the defense industry have the wind in their sails to convince leaders to buy new weapons to show they are doing something to counter Russia,” Kristensen said.

There is a clear shift among many European countries toward shoring up their own domestic defenses rather than relying on the U.S. But it’s not all about Russia. Part of it, Kristensen said, could be concerns about how U.S. support for NATO might change under a second Trump presidency.

“It is expected that European countries will develop their own weapons. These initiatives have become more important as President Trump appears to be reducing US involvement in Europe,” he said.

Trump has repeatedly criticized the NATO alliance, complaining that many countries are not doing their part to help the group’s collective defense. He has even suggested that he would have Russia attack member states that don’t pay their fair share of the budget.