Russia’s sharp opposition to a possible US transfer of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine exposes a core military vulnerability, campaigners say. With a range up to 2,500 kilometres and high precision, Tomahawks would let Kyiv strike high-value targets deep inside Russia a prospect that Russian leaders publicly fear and which the US president has now raised as a negotiation lever.
Yuriy Boyechko, founder of the US-based Hope for Ukraine, said the Kremlin’s alarm stems from a simple military fact: these missiles could destroy Russia’s strategic sanctuaries. “Tomahawks, with their precision and immense range of up to 2,500 kilometres, would allow Ukraine to accurately strike and destroy high-value Russian military targets such as strategic airbases (like Engels-2), command centres, major logistics hubs, and defence industrial factories (like drone production sites) that are currently considered safe deep within Russian territory,” he said. “This capability would cripple Russia’s ability to sustain its forces on the front line and fundamentally shift the balance of the conflict.”
President Donald Trump, speaking aboard Air Force One, has described sending Tomahawks as a bargaining tool. “I might say, ‘Look: if this war is not going to get settled, I’m going to send them Tomahawks,’” he said, after telling reporters on October 6 that he had “sort of made a decision” pending target reviews. The idea follows a direct request from President Volodymyr Zelensky in September and forms part of a wider US approach that includes planned calls to Vladimir Putin and threats of sanctions.
Tomahawks developed in the 1970s and modernised into Block V variants that fly low and stealthily with conventional warheads up to 450kg would extend Ukraine’s reach far beyond the shorter-range Western systems it already uses, such as ATACMS (about 300 km) and Storm Shadow/SCALP (about 250 km). Those systems have struck occupied areas and damaged assets like Black Sea Fleet ships, but they cannot reach inland Russian industrial centres. Tomahawks could, for example, target drone factories in Tatarstan or ammunition depots previously out of reach.
The proposal has split opinion among allies. The United Kingdom has backed deeper strike capabilities, Germany remains cautious about committing its Taurus missiles, and some US officials worry about depleting naval stockpiles needed for Indo-Pacific deterrence. Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, the US president’s envoy, emphasised the military logic: “There are no such things as sanctuaries in war.”
Moscow has responded with stark warnings as it presses its Donbas offensive, despite reported heavy losses. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov voiced “extreme concern” over advanced weapons, and President Putin warned on October 5 of a “completely new stage of escalation” that could damage US–Russia ties. Former president Dmitry Medvedev even suggested nuclear repercussions, a line Boyechko largely dismissed as a blend of genuine fear and political theatre. “The Kremlin’s public panic, characterised by warnings of ‘extreme concern’ and veiled nuclear escalation from officials, is a mix of genuine military anxiety and calculated political bluff,” he said.
Russia’s strategy has relied on attrition supported by a steady rear production reportedly more than 100 drones a day and supplies from North Korea. Ukrainian strikes on Russian production sites, including recent hits on plants such as Sverdlov, have already shown how strikes on rear infrastructure can disrupt the war effort. Tomahawks, Boyechko argues, would magnify that pressure and bypass some S-400 air-defence constraints that are less effective against low-flying cruise threats.
“By supplying this specific long-range weapon, the US would empower Ukraine to force a high-cost fight on Russia’s home front, putting immense pressure on President Putin to seek a negotiated settlement,” Boyechko said. “For Moscow, the Tomahawk is not just a missile; it is a direct threat to the core infrastructure supporting the war effort and a diplomatic tool that could undermine their long-term strategy of attrition.”
As Ramstein-format talks convened on October 15 amid Russian attacks that have caused Ukrainian blackouts, the debate over Tomahawks remained live. Estonia’s foreign minister, Margus Tsahkna, posted on X that unrestricted support including long-range capabilities “helps [Ukraine] win the war and push Russia back,” and warned that supplying Tomahawks would send a “very strong message to Moscow.”
Comments
Post a Comment