The United States is considering granting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s request for Tomahawk cruise missiles and allowing Kyiv to strike deep into Russia, President Donald Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia confirmed over the weekend.
Tomahawk cruise missiles, which have a range of at least 1,500 miles, would be a major improvement to Ukraine’s arsenal and its ability to hit deep inside Russia — including Moscow — something the previous U.S. administration was reluctant to allow.
In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg said Trump had authorized Ukraine to carry out long-range strikes with U.S.-made weapons, adding that “there are no such things as sanctuaries.” “This is where I think they have the opportunity to challenge Russia much more aggressively,” he said.
At a news conference Monday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia was “carefully analyzing” the “very serious” statements made over the weekend, trying to understand who would launch the missiles and how the targets would be set.
“Even if this happens, there is no panacea that can change the situation on the front lines for the Kyiv regime,” Peskov said. “There is no magic weapon. Whether it’s Tomahawks or other missiles, they will not be able to change the dynamics.”
Ukraine already carries out long-range attacks with its fleet of drones, particularly against oil infrastructure, but the Tomahawks would be a major military upgrade. Under President Joe Biden, the United States only reluctantly allowed the use of ATACM missiles inside Russia, with a range of just 190 miles.
Vice President JD Vance, also interviewed Sunday on Fox News, said Trump has not made a final decision on the sale of Tomahawk missiles to European countries, which would then send them to Ukraine.
The sale of Tomahawks would mark an abrupt reversal in how Trump has viewed the battlefield situation in Ukraine, even as Russia has been accused of increasing provocations against NATO countries. Last week, Trump appeared to have a change of heart on the war, saying that he believed Ukraine is capable of winning back the land it has lost and that Russia — which he called “a paper tiger” — “should have stopped” the war.
Posted by John3262005
3 Comments
With what launchers? The army currently only has two batteries of Typhon box launcher and they’re already deployed to the pacific. Every other TLAM in U.S. inventory requires the naval VLS system.
So the context here is that this is only being considered because of Russian incursions into NATO airspace. The Shahed drones that Russia uses cost like 50k, and a Patriot interceptor costs like 4 million, so NATO can’t just indefinitely shoot down every drone that enters their space. This generally leaves 2 options. One is buy a bunch of cheap interceptor drones like Ukraine does, to have a cost effective way to deal with it. The other is give Ukraine missiles and coordinates of Russian drone factories and take care of the problem at the source.
Option 1 is what Russia wants NATO to do, which is probably why they are doing the incursions in the first place. Europe buying cheap drones cuts into the supply of cheap drones Ukraine can buy, and raises their prices. Manufacturers are already at full capacity, so they can’t just make more because Europe buys some. So this would secure NATO airspace but at a cost of hurting Ukraine.
Option 2 is obviously better for Ukraine, because blowing up drone factories in Russia reduces the amount of drones doing damage in their nation. I have no doubt this is the option Europe wants as well, they just have to get Trump on board with it since the US has the missiles.
Ukraine is the proxy war cold war strategists would have sould their soul for, and we aren’t using it at all