On Friday, October 17, 2025, the world’s attention will turn to the White House, where US President Donald Trump is set to host Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The stakes could hardly be higher: at the heart of their meeting is speculation that the United States may supply Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles—a move that could dramatically reshape the war between Ukraine and Russia and reverberate through global diplomatic circles.
The prospect of arming Ukraine with Tomahawks, America’s go-to long-range precision weapon, has already sent shockwaves through Moscow. According to News18, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that such a transfer would mark a “new stage of escalation” in US-Russia relations and “cause substantial damage.” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov echoed these concerns on Russian state TV, describing the possibility as a cause of “extreme concern.”
This high-stakes diplomatic chess match comes on the heels of what Trump described as a “productive” phone call with Putin. The two leaders discussed efforts to end the conflict, but the shadow of the Tomahawk loomed large over their conversation. Trump’s stance has been, at best, measured. “We have a lot of Tomahawks,” he said, adding, “but we can’t deplete our country.” His remarks reflect a balancing act: weighing Ukraine’s urgent requests against the need to maintain US military readiness.
For Zelenskyy, the calculus is clear. The Ukrainian president remains hopeful that the mere threat of Tomahawks could pressure Moscow towards peace. As he put it earlier this week, “We see and hear that Russia is afraid that the Americans may give us Tomahawks—that this kind of pressure may work for peace.” He has also been explicit about Ukraine’s intentions: “We never attacked their civilians. This is the big difference between Ukraine and Russia. That’s why, if we speak about long-range missiles, we speak only about military goals.” (News18)
Trump, meanwhile, is not just playing defense. He plans to meet Putin soon in Budapest to discuss peace proposals, touting ending the war as his top foreign policy goal. Yet with Moscow intensifying strikes and Ukraine pleading for more advanced weapons, the possible sale of Tomahawks has taken center stage—one that both excites Kyiv and alarms the Kremlin.
So, what exactly are Tomahawk missiles, and why do they matter so much in this moment?
Developed in the 1970s by Raytheon, the Tomahawk cruise missile has become a cornerstone of US and allied strike capabilities. It’s not a newcomer to combat: Tomahawks have been used in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and, more recently, against Houthi rebels in Yemen (Financial Times). Powered by jet engines and guided by a sophisticated array of GPS and navigation systems, the Tomahawk can fly just 100 feet above the ground at approximately 550 mph, making it exceptionally difficult to detect and intercept. Each missile carries a warhead weighing around 1,000 pounds (or roughly 450 kilograms) and can strike targets up to 1,500 miles—or about 2,500 kilometers—away.
The missile’s low-altitude trajectory is a nightmare for air defenses. As Andriy Kovalenko from Ukraine’s Centre for Countering Disinformation told DW, “Tomahawks are especially effective when launched in salvos, as overloading air defences increases their success rate.” Past US strikes in Syria showed that even advanced Russian S-400 and Pantsir systems struggled to intercept them.
Traditionally, Tomahawks are launched from ships or submarines, but Ukraine lacks such naval platforms. Instead, the US Army’s Typhon Mid-Range Capability System—a container-based launcher first tested in 2023—could allow Ukraine to fire Tomahawks from land. The Marine Corps’ Long-Range Fire System is another potential option, and Ukrainian troops, already adept at using US-supplied HIMARS and ATACMS, would likely require minimal training to operate these new systems (AP).
Why does Ukraine want Tomahawks so badly? The answer is reach. These missiles would be the longest-range US weapon provided to Ukraine to date, far exceeding the 190-mile range of previously supplied ATACMS missiles. With Tomahawks, Ukraine could strike deep into Russian territory, targeting logistics hubs, arms factories, drone production facilities, and even airbases like Engels-2 in Saratov. As Mykola Bielieskov of Kyiv’s National Institute for Strategic Studies told the Financial Times, the weapon would enable “combined attacks and better destroy oil processing, military industrial complex, logistics and command and control.”
Yet, the question of how many Tomahawks Ukraine could realistically receive is complicated. The US Navy’s inventory was estimated at about 4,000 missiles in 2023, but production has slowed dramatically: only 68 new missiles were purchased that year, and even fewer afterward (Heritage Foundation). Mark Cancian, a former Pentagon official, estimated that the US “probably would be willing to part with hundreds,” but Jim Townsend, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, cautioned, “If we do give Tomahawks, it won’t be a huge batch, and that means that Zelenskyy will have to be very careful in terms of how he uses these.”
Cost is another constraint. Depending on the variant and production batch, each Tomahawk can run between $1.3 million and $12 million. Given these prices and the US’s own stockpile needs, analysts suggest Ukraine might receive fewer than 100 missiles—a powerful but limited arsenal.
Could these missiles change the course of the war? The answer depends on whom you ask. Defense analyst Professor Michael Clarke told Sky News that the weapons would give Ukraine “massive firepower to target key Russian infrastructure,” but he cautioned that they might not be the “game-changer” some expect. Bielieskov, for his part, argued that “for proper effect, at least 100 missiles” would be needed per month. Others see the impact as more psychological and political. Former US ambassador to Ukraine John E. Herbst told DW, “Kremlin hysteria over a possible delivery of these weapons to Ukraine shows it could influence Putin’s policies.”
For Russia, the potential delivery of Tomahawks is as much about symbolism as it is about battlefield realities. Beyond the immediate military threat, the move would signal that Washington is willing to raise the stakes, sending a message to Moscow that the US still holds powerful cards in this conflict. Even if the number of missiles is limited, the psychological effect—and the potential for escalation—cannot be underestimated.
As Trump and Zelenskyy prepare for their pivotal meeting, Kyiv is betting that the mere threat of Tomahawks could force Moscow to rethink its strategy. Whether Trump delivers the missiles or keeps the offer as leverage, the world will be watching closely to see how this latest twist in the Ukraine-Russia war unfolds. The decisions made in Washington this week may well reverberate across Europe and beyond, shaping the next phase of a conflict that has already transformed the global order.