Fresh tensions have erupted across Europe and the Atlantic as Russia issued a stern warning to the United States: supplying Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine would provoke a new and dangerous escalation in the ongoing conflict. The Kremlin’s message, delivered by spokesperson Dmitry Peskov on October 2, 2025, came as U.S. officials weighed Kyiv’s longstanding request for the powerful long-range weapons—capable of striking deep into Russian territory, including Moscow itself.
"If this happens, it will be a new serious round of tension that will require an appropriate response from the Russian side," Peskov told Russian journalists, according to state news agency TASS and multiple international outlets. While he did not elaborate on what form Russia’s response might take, the warning underscored the increasingly fraught nature of the war’s next phase.
The debate over Tomahawk missiles has been simmering for months, but it boiled over after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly pressed U.S. President Donald Trump for the missiles during a closed-door meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly on September 23. The request was hardly a surprise—Tomahawks have been on Ukraine’s wish list for years and were even featured in Zelensky’s "Victory Plan" presented to then-President Joe Biden in October 2024, according to The Kyiv Independent.
The Tomahawk, a signature component of the U.S. arsenal, is renowned for its 1,600-kilometer (1,000-mile) range, low-altitude flight, and ability to change course mid-flight. For Ukraine, the appeal is clear: the missiles would allow them to target Russian command centers, supply hubs, and even the Kremlin itself, far beyond the current front lines. As Zelensky bluntly put it, "centers of power, including the Kremlin, could be legitimate targets."
Ukraine’s current arsenal relies heavily on Western-supplied Storm Shadow missiles, which have a range of just 250 kilometers (155 miles). Meanwhile, Russia continues to bombard Ukrainian cities with Kalibr cruise missiles and Iskander ballistic missiles, maintaining a significant advantage in long-range strike capability. To compensate, Ukraine has increasingly turned to long-range drone strikes, hitting Russian fuel depots, military bases, and infrastructure far from the battlefield.
Against this backdrop, the Trump administration has begun sending more advanced weaponry to Kyiv under a NATO-backed deal. The first aid package, approved on September 16, included Patriot and HIMARS missiles. But the Tomahawk debate represents a new threshold, with the potential to fundamentally alter the conflict’s dynamics—or to trigger a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance confirmed on September 28 that Washington was "reviewing" Ukraine’s request for Tomahawks. Speaking to Fox News in an interview taped October 1, Vance said, "It’s something that the president is going to make the final determination on. I know that we’re reviewing that request. We’re also reviewing a number of other requests."
President Trump, for his part, has grown increasingly frustrated with what he views as dead-end diplomacy with Russian President Vladimir Putin. According to Washington Examiner, Trump has shifted from pursuing peace talks to making the Kremlin "feel pain" through military support for Ukraine. The White House has reportedly greenlit intelligence-sharing with Ukraine, specifically targeting Russian energy sites for potential missile strikes.
On social media, Trump made his position clear: "With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, [reclaimation of] the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option. We will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO to do what they want with them."
Zelensky, never one to mince words, told reporters after his meeting with Trump, "They have to know where the bomb shelters are," referring to Kremlin officials. "If they will not stop the war, they will need it in any case. They have to know that we in Ukraine, each day, we will answer. If they attack us, we will answer them." Trump’s response to Zelensky’s request? "We will work on it."
The rhetoric has only intensified. Peskov dismissed Zelensky’s threats as "irresponsible" and the actions of a leader "continuing his desperate efforts." Yet behind the bluster lies a very real risk: the potential for a direct clash between two nuclear-armed powers. As Newsweek noted, handing Tomahawks to Kyiv could be a calculated gamble—one designed to pressure Russia into ending its war, but with the possibility of disastrous consequences if it backfires.
Russia, for its part, has repeatedly warned that NATO’s direct involvement in the conflict would be treated as an act of war. President Putin stated last year, "It is not a question of allowing the Ukrainian regime to strike Russia with [U.S.] weapons or not. It is about deciding whether NATO countries become directly involved in the military conflict or not." He argued that using such missiles would require NATO-furnished personnel, intelligence, and weapons systems, making the alliance a party to the war.
"If this decision is made, it will mean nothing short of direct involvement—it will mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are parties to the war in Ukraine," Putin said. "This will mean their direct involvement in the conflict, and it will clearly change the very essence, the very nature of the conflict dramatically."
Peskov has also pointed to ongoing U.S. intelligence-sharing with Ukraine, telling reporters, "The United States of America transmits intelligence to Ukraine on a regular basis online. The supply and use of the entire infrastructure of NATO and the United States to collect and transfer intelligence to Ukrainians is obvious." Reports of intelligence-sharing have fueled Russian suspicions that the West is already deeply embedded in the conflict’s operational planning, even if not yet on the battlefield itself.
Meanwhile, European leaders are watching events with growing anxiety. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, speaking at a European Union summit in Denmark, described the situation as "a new type of war, very complex, but it is war." He warned that if Ukraine loses, "it will mean our defeat," highlighting the stakes for the continent at large. Incidents involving Russian ships and drones near Polish infrastructure have only heightened concerns about the conflict spilling over into NATO territory.
Amid all this, peace negotiations remain deadlocked. Russia insists on formal recognition of the Ukrainian territory it has seized and rejects the prospect of NATO peacekeepers on Ukrainian soil. Ukraine, for its part, maintains that security decisions are its own to make as a sovereign state and is constitutionally bound not to cede any of its territory. The future architecture of Ukrainian security—and the division of territory—remain the core stumbling blocks.
Peskov, perhaps seeking to downplay the significance of the Tomahawk debate, remarked, "It also remains obvious that there is no magic pill, no magic weapon for the Kyiv regime—no weapon can radically change the course of events." Yet as the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia edge closer to a new phase of confrontation, the world watches anxiously, wondering if the next move will bring peace—or something far more perilous.
