[Goose]

I wonder if that strike in Toropets, Tver (northwest of Moscow!) hurt the cause by demonstrating that Ukraine has operational reach even without unfettered use of Western, long-range weapons.  (They sent 100 drones to hit that munitions stockpile.)

There are a several missing pieces of information that would have a lot to do with why Ukraine still wants to use Western long range weapons. AFAIK we have no idea what kind of drones with what capabilities Ukraine used in their attack. It is quite possible that of those 100 drones only 20 or so were actually capable of doing damage and the rest were designed to simply absorb Russian air defenses. We have no real idea yet about how often Ukraine can launch such strikes. If it is once a month it isn't really going to be all that useful. Still important but not really able to change the game. Obviously Russia is going to respond by de-centralizing their ammunition storage. That will take time, cost money, and require better planning. Of course, if Russia does that they will become a better fighting force. This is just what nobody wants :-).

The Western long-range weapons are valuable against relatively ephemeral targets. Attacking an ammunition storage base that has been there since the 1940s allows planning for a simultaneous 100 drone strike to be made. A troop concentration or ammunition train doesn't necessarily exist for that long, often weeks at most. The ability to relatively quickly attack such targets will still be very valuable. FWIW the US considers targets that are (probably) vulnerable for about an hour or less as candidates for missile strikes. Anything that is expected to persists longer is generally handed to the Air Force. Ukraine doesn't have that option. Ukraine is also greatly assisted by Western sources (of one kind or another) to help with long range targeting. Ukraine may not be able to know how long some targets will persist. They need to hit them promptly, and Western missiles may be their only option.

[Goose]

I wonder if that strike in Toropets, Tver (northwest of Moscow!) hurt the cause by demonstrating that Ukraine has operational reach even without unfettered use of Western, long-range weapons.  (They sent 100 drones to hit that munitions stockpile.)

There are a several missing pieces of information that would have a lot to do with why Ukraine still wants to use Western long range weapons. AFAIK we have no idea what kind of drones with what capabilities Ukraine used in their attack. It is quite possible that of those 100 drones only 20 or so were actually capable of doing damage and the rest were designed to simply absorb Russian air defenses. We have no real idea yet about how often Ukraine can launch such strikes. If it is once a month it isn't really going to be all that useful. Still important but not really able to change the game. Obviously Russia is going to respond by de-centralizing their ammunition storage. That will take time, cost money, and require better planning. Of course, if Russia does that they will become a better fighting force. This is just what nobody wants :-).

The Western long-range weapons are valuable against relatively ephemeral targets. Attacking an ammunition storage base that has been there since the 1940s allows planning for a simultaneous 100 drone strike to be made. A troop concentration or ammunition train doesn't necessarily exist for that long, often weeks at most. The ability to relatively quickly attack such targets will still be very valuable. FWIW the US considers targets that are (probably) vulnerable for about an hour or less as candidates for missile strikes. Anything that is expected to persists longer is generally handed to the Air Force. Ukraine doesn't have that option. Ukraine is also greatly assisted by Western sources (of one kind or another) to help with long range targeting. Ukraine may not be able to know how long some targets will persist. They need to hit them promptly, and Western missiles may be their only option.