In a move that could significantly alter the dynamics of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, the United States is actively considering the transfer of its formidable BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. This development comes after a series of high-level meetings and an escalation in Russian military activity, including deadly air assaults on Ukrainian cities and alleged drone incursions into NATO airspace.
The possibility of Ukraine receiving Tomahawk missiles has been brewing for weeks, but it gained traction following a meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump on September 23, 2025, during the United Nations General Assembly in New York. According to Defense Express and multiple U.S. officials, Zelensky made a direct request for the long-range weapon system, which would give Ukraine the capability to strike targets deep within Russian territory—far beyond the current frontlines.
For context, the BGM-109 Tomahawk missile is no ordinary piece of hardware. With a range of up to 1,600 kilometers (roughly 1,000 miles), and in its latest Block IV Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM) version, it can loiter over target areas for hours and receive course adjustments mid-flight. Since its introduction in 1983, the Tomahawk has been used over 2,350 times in various conflicts by the U.S. and its allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and the Netherlands, as reported by The Economic Times.
The potential transfer of these missiles marks a noteworthy shift in U.S. policy. Previously, President Trump had denied similar requests, citing concerns about escalation. However, after the recent meeting with Putin and Zelensky, Trump has signaled a new willingness to support Ukraine’s territorial ambitions. As Trump’s special envoy, Keith Kellogg, told Fox News, "Use the ability to hit deep. There are no such things as sanctuaries." Kellogg’s words underscore the administration’s belief that Ukraine should have the means to strike back at Russian military assets, even those far from the immediate battlefield.
Vice President JD Vance, speaking on September 28, confirmed the White House is “actively considering” the missile transfer. He emphasized, "The president will do what’s in the best interest of the United States,” but also made clear that "Russia must wake up and accept reality," pointing to high Russian casualties and little progress on the ground. Vance’s comments reflect growing frustration within the administration over Russia’s refusal to engage in meaningful peace talks, despite repeated invitations from both the U.S. and Ukraine.
The debate over supplying Tomahawks comes at a time of heightened violence. In the days leading up to these discussions, Kyiv endured one of the most intense aerial bombardments in recent months—a 12-hour Russian attack involving hundreds of drones and dozens of missiles. According to Ukrainian officials, the strikes killed at least four people, including a 12-year-old girl, and injured dozens more. Residential buildings, civilian infrastructure, and even a cardiology institute were among the targets, as reported by Kyiv Post. The attacks extended beyond Kyiv to regions such as Zaporizhzhia, Khmelnytskyi, Sumy, Mykolaiv, Chernihiv, and Odesa.
International condemnation was swift. British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper stated she was “appalled by Russia’s attack on Ukraine overnight” and reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to supporting Ukraine. Meanwhile, U.S. Congressmember Mike Turner, recently returned from Kyiv, urged the White House to lift all restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons. On CBS’s Face the Nation, Turner argued, “Ukraine needs to have the ability to use long-range weapons to push Russia back. And when they’re able to do that, they will get their territory back.” He also criticized Western nations for “funding both sides” of the conflict, noting that while military aid flows to Kyiv, European countries continue to purchase Russian energy through intermediaries, inadvertently supporting Russia’s war effort.
While the political debate rages, the technical aspects of transferring Tomahawk missiles are also under review. Traditionally, Tomahawks are launched from ships or submarines, not aircraft, which means Ukraine would need suitable ground-based launchers. The U.S. Marine Corps, according to Defense Express, is retiring its Long Range Fires (LRF) launchers for Tomahawk missiles due to poor mobility on soft terrain—a challenge in amphibious operations. These surplus launchers, of which four to eight remain in service, could be repurposed and installed on more mobile vehicles better suited to Ukraine’s landscape. The withdrawal of LRF units is scheduled for the U.S. fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025.
Rather than a direct transfer from the U.S. to Ukraine, the likely scenario involves European partners and Canada purchasing the missiles and associated launch systems through the PURL mechanism—a classified and expedited process for arms transfers. Germany has already expressed interest in the Typhon ground-based Tomahawk system, although current U.S. units are focused on the Pacific region. Lockheed Martin is also promoting the Mk 70 launcher in Europe, but production and delivery timelines remain long, making the surplus LRF units an attractive near-term solution.
Not everyone is convinced that Tomahawk missiles will be a game changer. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov dismissed the potential transfer, telling reporters, “Even if it happens that the United States sends its Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, currently, there is no cure-all that could be a game changer on the front lines for the Kiev regime. No magical weapons exist, and Tomahawk or other missiles simply won’t be a game changer.” This sentiment was echoed in Russian media, which continues to downplay the impact of Western military aid while vowing to press on with the offensive.
Still, the war—now stretching into its 44th month—has seen Ukrainian forces hold their ground against a numerically superior Russian military, bolstered by arms from NATO nations. Ukrainian troops have managed to thwart Russian advances in several regions, even pushing back Russian forces and compelling Moscow to rely more heavily on aerial strikes. Recent weeks have also seen increased tensions with NATO, as Russian drones allegedly violated the airspace of Poland and Estonia, prompting NATO jets to scramble in response. Russia has denied these allegations but warned that any attack on its forces by NATO would be seen as an act of war.
As the U.S. weighs its options, the decision to supply Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine stands at the intersection of military strategy, international diplomacy, and domestic politics. The coming weeks will reveal whether this new chapter in Western support will tip the balance—or simply add another layer to an already complex and brutal conflict.