This Is Not the Time to Give Tomahawks to Ukraine As Trump’s diplomacy opens new talks with Putin, Ukraine’s push for U.S. Tomahawk missiles tests the line between deterrence and dangerous escalation. By Fred Fleitz
https://amgreatness.com/2025/10/17/this-is-not-the-time-to-give-tomahawks-to-ukraine/
In response to Russian President Putin’s refusal to agree to a ceasefire in the Ukraine War and his stubborn defiance of President Trump’s peace efforts, Ukraine wants the U.S. to give it Tomahawk cruise missiles. Ukraine’s rationale is that enabling it to go on the offensive against Russia with these advanced, long-range missiles might force Putin to agree to a ceasefire.
Providing Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine might be dangerously escalatory. Still, this proposal, coupled with the success of President Trump’s diplomacy to end the Israel-Hamas War, may have motivated Putin to agree yesterday to new rounds of high-level diplomacy with the U.S.
Ukrainian President Zelensky likely will still request Tomahawks during his meeting with President Trump at the White House on Friday, October 18. Trump indicated on Wednesday that he was open to this idea when he told reporters, “I might say, ‘Look, if this war is not going to get settled, I’m going to send Tomahawks.’”
Trump is unlikely to agree to this when he meets with Zelensky today, as he had a positive phone call yesterday with Putin, during which the two presidents agreed to new high-level talks and a summit in Budapest.
The Tomahawk is a low-flying, difficult-to-intercept cruise missile with a range of about 1,500 miles. This would put Moscow (about 450 miles from Ukraine) and areas of Russia west of the Ural Mountains in range of Ukraine. This far exceeds the ranges of advanced U.S., French, and UK missiles provided to Ukraine, none of which exceed 350 miles. Ukraine also agreed to range limits for these missiles.
Although Ukraine has produced some long-range drones and cruise missiles with ranges of about 620 to 1,900 miles, the Tomahawk’s reliability, precision guidance, and capability to carry larger warheads would make it a much more effective and lethal missile in the Ukrainian military’s arsenal.
If the U.S. provided Tomahawks to Ukraine (probably by selling them to NATO), there likely would be an end-use agreement limiting their use to military targets and barring attacks against very sensitive targets like the Kremlin, which could cause massive Russian retaliation against Ukraine and NATO states. Moreover, Ukraine would be dependent on U.S. training and targeting intelligence to use these missiles, which would give the Trump administration control over how they could be used.
The likely U.S. limitations on Ukraine’s use of Tomahawks have not dissuaded Russian officials from claiming that their transfer to Ukraine would be a red line for Moscow. Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said news that the U.S. might give these missiles to Ukraine was causing “extreme concern” in Moscow and said the war was now entering a “dramatic moment” with tensions escalating on all sides. Former Russian President Medvedev said Russia’s response could be nuclear if Ukraine acquires and fires Tomahawk missiles at targets deep inside Russia.
Although Medvedev is known for threatening and hyperbolic remarks, his comments on this issue may reflect the possibility that Ukraine acquiring and using Tomahawks against targets in Russia could so seriously escalate the war that Putin would decide that the U.S. and NATO were no longer just providing military aid to Ukraine but were at war with Russia. This could lead to Russia retaliating against NATO states and possibly a full-fledged Russia-NATO war.
President Trump will probably postpone the decision to send Tomahawks to Ukraine due to the recent agreement for high-level talks and the second Trump-Putin summit in Budapest. However, given Putin’s record of manipulating peace talks and not keeping his word to Trump and other U.S. officials, Trump could be pressed again to send Ukraine Tomahawks in a few weeks.
Even if Putin abuses the new rounds of diplomacy to again delay and defy Trump’s peace efforts, the U.S. should not be in a hurry to escalate the war. Instead, it should first exhaust all non-military options to pressure Putin.
If the new diplomatic talks fail, I believe President Trump should fully implement painful economic sanctions against Russia, followed by energy sanctions. This should include full cooperation from Europe, Europe ending its imports of Russian energy, and secondary sanctions against states that buy Russian energy.
These measures may be effective if given a chance to work. Coupled with recent successful Ukrainian attacks against Russian oil facilities that have caused gasoline shortages, tough economic and energy sanctions might deny Russia critical revenue and significantly increase popular opposition to the war.
Only after fully implemented economic and energy sanctions fail should President Trump consider drastic moves like sending Tomahawks to Ukraine. This may be a perilous decision, but Trump is determined to end this war and won’t tolerate Putin’s defiance indefinitely. For now, however, it appears that the prospect of Trump giving Ukraine Tomahawks and his successful Middle East peace efforts have created a new opportunity for diplomacy. Trump’s national security team must pursue this opportunity before taking steps that could hugely escalate the war.
***
Fred Fleitz previously served as National Security Council chief of staff, a CIA analyst, and a House Intelligence Committee staff member. He is the Vice Chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security.
Comments are closed.
