The Tomahawk missiles are at the heart of a high-stakes diplomatic dance between the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine—and it’s about to get even more intense. Could these powerful weapons tip the scales in Ukraine’s favor, or will they ignite a dangerous escalation? Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy revealed on Thursday that discussions about transferring U.S. military assets, including the highly sought-after Tomahawk cruise missiles, have pushed Russian President Vladimir Putin to meet with former President Donald Trump in Budapest. This unexpected diplomatic move, announced by Trump on Truth Social, comes just a day before his third meeting with Zelenskyy in Washington. But here’s where it gets controversial: while Trump has publicly floated the idea of sending Tomahawks to Ukraine—a move Zelenskyy believes could significantly boost their war effort—he’s also expressed hesitation, citing the need to preserve these missiles for U.S. defense. “We can’t deplete them for our country,” Trump stated, leaving the decision hanging in the balance.
Trump’s rhetoric has been anything but consistent. On Sunday, he boldly declared, “If this war is not going to get settled, I’m going to send them Tomahawks.” Yet, in a Thursday phone call with Putin, the topic was barely touched upon. Meanwhile, Zelenskyy insists that the mere mention of Tomahawks has Moscow scrambling to reopen dialogue. “Moscow is rushing to resume dialogue as soon as it hears about Tomahawks,” he wrote on X, underscoring the weapon’s psychological impact.
But this is the part most people miss: Tomahawks are not just any missile. With a range of up to 1,500 miles and the ability to deliver heavy payloads, they could enable Ukraine to conduct long-range, precision strikes without smuggling weapons into Russia. Tom Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, calls them “scarce non-nuclear strategic assets” that should be reserved for high-value targets. “Degrading high-value Russian assets strikes me as exactly the sort of thing they’re good for,” he explained. However, the U.S. faces a critical challenge: its limited stockpile and the recent development of ground-based launchers, like the Typhon system, which lacks the mobility needed for Ukraine’s dynamic battlefield.
The controversy deepens when considering Russia’s stance. The Kremlin has labeled a potential Tomahawk sale as an “escalation,” while U.S. officials argue it could deter Russian aggression. Matthew Whitaker, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, even suggested that Tomahawks could threaten “a lot of Russian oil and gas infrastructure,” further weakening Putin’s position. Yet, the decision ultimately rests with the U.S. president, and the conditions for their use would likely be strict. “I would not expect them to fly through the window of the Kremlin,” Karako quipped, emphasizing their strategic rather than symbolic role.
As Trump and Zelenskyy prepare to meet, the question remains: Will Tomahawks become a game-changer for Ukraine, or will they spark a dangerous escalation? And what does this say about the U.S.’s broader strategy in arming Ukraine without direct involvement? The answers may lie in the high-stakes diplomacy unfolding this week.
What do you think? Is providing Tomahawks to Ukraine a necessary step to counter Russian aggression, or is it a risky move that could escalate tensions? Share your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
