Ukraine–Russia

Zelenskyy says Ukrainian forces used the FP-7 ballistic missile in combat for the first time

This version is a correction.

ATTACK
Location
Ukraine
Actors
Ukraine · Russia
Importance
Notable

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on October 1 that Ukrainian forces had carried out the first combat use of the FP-7 tactical ballistic missile, a domestically developed weapon. The first strike came hours after he pressed European ambassadors in Kyiv to release unspent defence loans and to fund deeper strikes into Russian territory. Zelenskyy announced the launch in his own post and said the next step is production, without naming a target; the Wall Street Journal, as relayed by the X account PulsePoint News, reported that the missile struck a target in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory and that how successful the attack was remains unclear.

Verification: Confirmed

Evidence: Ukrainian tactical ballistic missile. FP-7. First combat use. Thank you for the result. Next up: production., Ukraine Claims First Combat Use Of FP-7 Ballistic Missile, Zelensky asks EU again for money to strike deeper into Russia

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on 1 October 2026 that Ukrainian forces had carried out the first combat use of the FP-7 tactical ballistic missile, a domestically developed weapon, hours after pressing European ambassadors in Kyiv to release unspent defence loans and fund deeper strikes into Russian territory. His own post announcing the launch has now been registered as a source. Euromaidan Press separately reported the first combat use, quoting his words that the next step is production, and added that Kyiv has not said what the missile hit. That account also gives figures for the missile's speed and warhead and a reported range for the larger FP-9 without citing a source for them; these are recorded as its assertions. Since publication, an X account has relayed a Wall Street Journal report that the missile struck a target in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory on 1 October and that the outcome of the attack remains unclear; the Journal's own article could not be read, so that account is recorded as attributed and unverified.