Quick Read
- The US is actively considering supplying Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.
- Tomahawks have a range up to 2,500km and carry powerful warheads.
- Russia warns that such a transfer crosses its ‘red lines.’
- Ukraine seeks these missiles to strike deeper into Russian territory.
- European nations are alarmed by rising tensions and possible escalation.
US Tomahawk Missiles: A Strategic Shift in Ukraine’s Arsenal
In a dramatic turn of events, the United States is actively considering the transfer of Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine—a step that could profoundly reshape the battlefield and the political calculus of the ongoing war. This development comes as President Donald Trump’s administration signals a more assertive stance toward aiding Kyiv, even as Russia draws its own red lines over such deliveries.
Only months ago, US policy restricted Ukraine from using American-supplied weaponry for strikes inside Russian territory. Those limits, designed to avoid direct escalation with Moscow, are now being challenged. As Vice President JD Vance confirmed on Fox News, the decision is under “active conversation,” with Trump personally weighing the final determination. The stakes, both militarily and diplomatically, could not be higher.
What Makes Tomahawk Missiles Different?
The Tomahawk is no ordinary missile. Built for precision, it can strike targets up to 2,500 kilometers away, carrying a warhead of up to 450 kilograms. These missiles fly low, evade radar, and can be retargeted mid-flight—making them a formidable asset for any military. First deployed in the 1991 Gulf War, Tomahawks have become a symbol of US military might, reserved for close allies like the UK and Japan. Now, Ukraine stands at the threshold of joining that exclusive club.
Federico Borsari, a fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, notes that Tomahawks would be “a significant upgrade for Ukraine’s arsenal, especially in terms of long-range strike capabilities.” Unlike Storm Shadow missiles, which have a reach of around 250 kilometers, Tomahawks would allow Ukraine to target military bases, logistics hubs, and even government buildings deep inside Russia, including Moscow and St. Petersburg. The psychological impact alone could be enormous, as Zelenskyy hinted: “They will have to know where the bomb shelters are.”
Why Ukraine Is Pushing for Tomahawks
Ukraine’s request for Tomahawks is not just about matching Russia’s firepower. Russian forces routinely use long-range missiles such as the Kalibr and Iskander to hit Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. While Ukraine has developed innovative drone systems and received Western missiles like Storm Shadow and ATACMS, none offer the reach or destructive potential of the Tomahawk.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s “Victory Plan,” presented to the US in late 2024, put Tomahawks high on the wish list. With Russian refineries and airbases driving missile attacks against Ukraine, Kyiv wants the capability to strike back—harder and farther than ever before. Recent Ukrainian drone strikes have already crippled Russian fuel exports and caused widespread disruption, but as political scientist Scott Lucas explains, “The amount of damage a Tomahawk could cause with a direct hit would knock [facilities] offline for a much longer period.”
Yet, Zelenskyy also recognizes the strategic value of simply possessing these missiles. In an interview with Axios, he suggested that the threat alone could pressure Russia to negotiate: “We need it, but it doesn’t mean that we will use it. If we will have it, I think it’s additional pressure on Putin to sit and speak.”
Russian Red Lines and Rhetoric
Moscow’s response has been predictably forceful. Russian government spokesperson Dmitry Peskov asserted that the transfer of Tomahawks would not be a “game-changer,” but warned that it could cross a red line of Western interference. The Kremlin has repeatedly threatened to restart production of intermediate-range nuclear weapons and station them close to Western borders if it perceives direct US involvement—especially in targeting and intelligence for missile strikes.
On Telegram, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a stark warning that supplying such weaponry could lead to war “with weapons of mass destruction.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reinforced the message at the UN General Assembly, stating, “Any aggression against my country will be met with a decisive response.”
Despite these threats, analysts like Keir Giles from Chatham House argue that Russia’s warnings often serve as a scare tactic rather than a prelude to action. “Russia says everything is a red line,” Giles observed. “The nuclear option is not something Russia would go for. The last thing Russia wants is to get into a fight with a unified bloc, especially with the US.”
European Concerns and the Wider Impact
Europe watches nervously as the US and Russia trade signals. Recent Russian drone and aircraft incursions into NATO airspace have raised alarms from Poland to Estonia, with several countries closing airspace or holding emergency meetings. Germany, wary of escalation, has refused to supply its own Taurus missiles to Ukraine, while Chancellor Friedrich Merz described the continent as “not at war… but no longer at peace” with Russia.
Meanwhile, other options are under consideration. The Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), with a range of roughly 1,000 kilometers, may be easier for Ukraine to integrate. Germany has also hinted at supplying new long-range missiles in the near future. But for now, all eyes remain on the Tomahawk decision.
The Technical and Political Hurdles
Even if the US gives the green light, deployment is not straightforward. Tomahawks are typically launched from ships or submarines—platforms Ukraine lacks. As Vadym Skibitskyi of Ukraine’s military intelligence points out, “The main launch platforms are combat ships or strategic bombers. We don’t have any strategic bomber aircraft.”
Experts suggest that mobile launcher systems like the Typhon, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, would need to accompany any missile transfer. Integration, training, and operational secrecy present additional challenges. The possibility of “strategic ambiguity”—where Ukraine’s own long-range missiles claim responsibility for strikes—could complicate attribution and risk further escalation.
Looking Ahead: Escalation or Leverage?
As Washington debates its next move, the logic of escalation and deterrence is ever-present. The last major US weapons transfer—the ATACMS surface-to-surface missiles—prompted Russia to showcase new missile systems in response, but the impact was more symbolic than substantive. Years of grinding war have left Russia with limited resources, and many analysts believe any response to Tomahawks may be similarly restrained.
Still, the calculus could change rapidly. The arrival of Tomahawks would not only enhance Ukraine’s military reach but also signal a new phase of Western commitment. Whether used as leverage or in combat, these missiles represent both an opportunity and a risk—one that will shape the next chapter of the war.
In the high-stakes game of deterrence, the US’s potential delivery of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine is more than a tactical upgrade—it’s a test of resolve for both Washington and Moscow. The move could empower Kyiv and unsettle Russian defenses, but its true power may lie in the shadow it casts: the threat of escalation, wielded as both sword and shield in the pursuit of a negotiated peace.