Possible Scenarios: Will the United States Supply Ukraine with Long-Range “Tomahawk” Missiles?
On October 12, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump threatened that Washington might supply long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine if the Russia–Ukraine war continues. Moscow, in turn, warned of the possible repercussions of such a move, emphasizing that it would lead to a sharp escalation in the conflict’s trajectory. This raises several questions about the motives and dimensions behind the current U.S. escalation, the likelihood of Washington actually delivering these missiles to Kyiv, and the potential implications of such a scenario.
Rapid Developments
In recent days, the Russia–Ukraine war has witnessed accelerating developments that have further complicated the strategic landscape and opened the door to a new phase of pressure on Russia. These developments can be summarized as follows:
Ukrainian Delegation Visits Washington:
On October 14, 2025, a Ukrainian delegation led by Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak made a significant visit to Washington to negotiate an unprecedented agreement on drone technology. The delegation aims to conclude a deal granting the U.S. access to Kyiv’s wartime-developed drone technologies in exchange for additional financial and military assistance. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also announced that he would visit the U.S. on October 17, marking his third visit since Trump’s return to the White House, to request further military support from Washington.
Heightened U.S. Escalation Against Russia:
President Trump’s recent statements reflect a new American approach toward Russia, marked by a push for greater escalation. U.S. reports indicate that Washington intends to provide Ukraine with intelligence data enabling it to carry out long-range missile strikes on energy facilities inside Russia. Such actions would allow Ukrainian forces to target oil refineries, pipelines, and power plants, reducing Moscow’s oil and gas revenues. Washington has reportedly urged its European allies to offer similar support. In a further sign of escalation, U.S. media revealed that the Trump administration is seriously studying the possibility of supplying Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk missiles—a move Moscow views as a major escalation, coming less than two months after the Trump–Putin summit in Alaska in mid-August 2025. Western assessments suggest that Tomahawk missiles would give Ukraine a stronger offensive capability to strike Russian oil infrastructure. While drones have already proven partly effective in reducing Russia’s refining capacity by about one-fifth, the Tomahawk—with its 1,000-pound warhead—would deliver a far greater impact. Ukraine’s domestically produced “Flamingo” cruise missiles remain limited and untested, giving the Tomahawk a decisive edge in precision strikes against vital oil targets and putting further strain on Russia’s energy-dependent budget.
Key Implications
The latest developments in the Russia–Ukraine war—and particularly the shift in U.S. policy—carry several important implications:
A New Shift in Trump’s Position:
In recent weeks, President Trump’s stance toward the Russia–Ukraine conflict has shifted again. Since his return to the White House in January 2025, Trump’s position toward both parties has been marked by constant change. Following a brief period of U.S.–Russia rapprochement after the Alaska summit—at the expense of Washington’s ties with Kyiv—Trump has now adopted a new confrontational posture toward Moscow. During his latest meeting with President Zelensky at the White House, the Ukrainian leader raised the issue of acquiring Tomahawk cruise missiles—likely the land-based “Typhon” variant, capable of striking targets up to 2,500 km away. Previously, Kyiv had received long-range systems such as Britain’s Storm Shadow (range: 250 km), which were used only within Ukrainian territory. In September 2025, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance stated that the final decision on supplying these missiles rested solely with Trump, adding that Washington was also considering providing other NATO-made long-range systems. Since the outbreak of the war in February 2022, the U.S. and its Western allies have supplied Kyiv with extensive military assistance—including air defense systems, precision missiles, drones, and intelligence sharing. Washington had previously imposed limits on support that could lead to strikes inside Russia. However, as the war drags on without resolution, Kyiv has intensified its calls for long-range strike capabilities against Russia’s critical infrastructure—especially energy facilities—to undermine the Kremlin’s war financing. Trump’s current strategy seems to involve hinting at supplying Tomahawks to pressure Moscow into accepting a peace agreement.
European Mediation Role:
Zelensky has suggested that the U.S. could transfer Tomahawks to European states, which would then deliver them to Ukraine. He also expressed readiness to sign additional defense deals with Washington—including for long-range weapons—beyond the current $90 billion agreement. With a range of 2,500 km, Tomahawks would become one of Ukraine’s most powerful assets as it faces ongoing waves of Russian missile and drone attacks. It is worth noting that Trump had previously rejected Ukraine’s requests for long-range weapons, but his failure so far to secure a peace deal with Moscow may be prompting him to use the Tomahawk card as leverage.
Trump’s Peace Strategy:
Seeking to project himself as a peacemaker capable of ending global conflicts, Trump aims to broker a historic agreement ending the Russia–Ukraine war. Following the initial optimism after his Alaska summit with Putin, negotiations appear to have stalled. Thus, Trump may now be escalating pressure on Russia by threatening to arm Kyiv with Tomahawks capable of hitting Russian oil refineries—and thereby curbing Moscow’s oil and gas revenues. This aligns with broader U.S. efforts to tighten restrictions on Russian energy exports, including urging allies to halt imports of Russian oil and gas. Consequently, analysts expect Trump to intensify his efforts to end the war—particularly after his success in brokering a peace deal in Gaza.
Challenges to Supplying Tomahawks:
Kyiv’s ambitions to obtain Tomahawks face multiple technical and logistical obstacles, chiefly its lack of naval or land-based launch platforms required for such missiles. Ukraine would therefore need U.S.-provided Typhon launchers, a move that could significantly escalate tensions and potentially bring Washington into direct confrontation with Moscow. Additional concerns involve the limited number of missiles the U.S. could supply, as Pentagon officials fear the move might weaken U.S. readiness in the Indo-Pacific, particularly against China. Questions also remain about Ukraine’s ability to store and secure these missiles and the limited battlefield effect of deploying a small number of them.
Possible Implications
Given growing speculation about a potential U.S. decision to supply Tomahawks to Ukraine, several outcomes can be anticipated:
Limited Tactical Advantage for Kyiv:
Some U.S. assessments suggest that Tomahawks would not provide Ukraine with a decisive battlefield edge. Even if supplied alongside a single Typhon system (capable of launching 16–32 missiles), the impact would likely be symbolic rather than strategic. Although their range could reach Moscow or St. Petersburg, such a move would mainly serve to escalate the war rather than alter its outcome.
Undermining U.S.–Russia Understandings:
According to Vice President Vance, the Trump administration is actively discussing the delivery of Tomahawks to Ukraine. However, this step—if implemented—would undermine the fragile understandings established between Washington and Moscow after the Alaska summit. President Vladimir Putin warned in early October 2025 that supplying Kyiv with Tomahawks would erode the recent positive trends in bilateral relations.
Potential Russian Escalation:
Moscow would view any U.S. move to supply Tomahawks—directly or indirectly—as a major escalation. Putin has declared that Russia would respond “appropriately” if the U.S. proceeded. Although the nature of this response remains unclear, the recent surge in Russian drone activity over Poland, Germany, and Denmark could hint at Moscow’s intentions. Likewise, Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, warned that supplying Ukraine with Tomahawks would have serious consequences, noting the difficulty of distinguishing conventional from nuclear versions mid-flight—thus heightening the risk of catastrophic escalation.
Possible Scenarios
As debate continues over whether Washington will deliver Tomahawks to Ukraine, three main scenarios appear plausible:
Direct U.S. Supply of Tomahawks to Ukraine:
Under this scenario, the U.S. directly transfers the missiles to Kyiv. Trump’s special envoy on Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, has stated that the president authorized Ukraine to use long-range weapons for strikes inside Russia, arguing that “there are no longer any safe places in Russia.” For now, this remains the least likely scenario, as Washington seeks to avoid escalation that could trigger direct confrontation.
U.S. Refusal to Deliver Tomahawks:
Many observers deem it unlikely that Trump will approve the transfer, given his past opposition and the lack of formal operational orders from the White House. Washington may instead be using the threat of delivery to pressure Moscow. Providing such missiles could push Russia to lift all constraints on the use of its so-called “special weapons.” Western reports also stress that the key issue lies in who would operate and target these missiles. Ukraine lacks trained personnel and would require precise U.S. intelligence support for combat use—something Washington may be reluctant to share due to the risk of leaking sensitive technology. This effectively reduces the likelihood of a transfer. In this context, Putin signaled Russia’s willingness to extend the New START Treaty on strategic arms reduction (set to expire on February 5, 2026), in an apparent attempt to dissuade Washington from sending Tomahawks to Kyiv—an argument that supports the second scenario.
Transfer via European Intermediaries:
A third scenario envisions the U.S. selling Tomahawks to European allies, who would then deliver them to Ukraine. This aligns with Zelensky’s proposal that the missiles be passed through a European state acting as the direct supplier. U.S. reports have indicated a European campaign urging greater American involvement in military support for Kyiv, viewing this pressure as a means to force Moscow toward negotiations. However, it remains unclear whether European nations are willing to take that step. Historically, the U.S. has shared Tomahawks only with a small number of allies—notably Japan, the U.K., Australia, and the Netherlands—and even these operate only sea- or submarine-launched variants. In July 2024, during the NATO summit, the U.S. and Germany announced plans to redeploy Tomahawk systems on German soil for the first time since the Cold War—capable of reaching deep into Russian territory. Thus, while the likelihood of direct U.S. delivery remains limited in the short term, the scenario cannot be ruled out entirely, especially amid Trump’s continued efforts to pressure Russian oil exports. Should Washington go ahead, it would mark a turning point in the war’s trajectory, enabling Kyiv to strike oil refineries and pipelines, reducing Moscow’s revenues, and likely prompting a severe Russian escalation that could extend beyond Ukraine into wider Eastern Europe.
As a result, the coming period is expected to witness intensified U.S.–Russian consultations aimed at avoiding such escalation and reviving peace negotiations to bring an end to the ongoing war in Ukraine.
