In a dramatic turn in the ongoing war in Ukraine, the United States has signaled a major policy shift by agreeing to provide Kyiv with intelligence on Russian energy infrastructure targets—while also weighing the supply of powerful long-range cruise missiles that could reshape the battlefield. The move, reported by Reuters and Defense Express in early October 2025, comes as President Donald Trump and his administration intensify efforts to support Ukraine’s campaign to reclaim occupied territories, even as critics and allies alike debate the risks of escalation.
The heart of the matter is the possible transfer of Tomahawk cruise missiles—long coveted by Ukraine for their ability to strike deep into Russian territory—and the emergence of Anduril Industries’ Barracuda missile family as a lower-cost, scalable alternative. According to Defense Express, Anduril’s Barracuda missiles, described as “rocket-drones,” have been touted as a potential game-changer for medium- and long-range strikes in the European theater. With three variants—the Barracuda-100, -250, and -500—these winged missiles offer ranges from 110 km to over 900 km, depending on the launch platform.
Yet, as with so many new weapons, the devil is in the details. The Barracuda’s payloads are modest: the smaller variants carry about 16 kg of explosives, while the Barracuda-500 manages roughly 45 kg. That’s enough to threaten supply trucks, command posts, and soft targets, but it’s a far cry from the Tomahawk’s 450 kg warhead, which is designed to penetrate and obliterate hardened bunkers. As Defense Express notes, “Barracuda brings range and affordability to the table, but its small explosive load and the absence of an active production line today are major constraints.”
Anduril, for its part, claims the Barracuda design is scalable and that mass production could ramp up quickly if large orders come in. However, meaningful output—on the order of several thousand missiles per year—isn’t expected until late 2026, and only if substantial purchase agreements materialize. In the meantime, the Barracuda is likely to serve as a complement, not a replacement, for more powerful cruise missiles in Ukraine’s arsenal.
On the other end of the spectrum is the Tomahawk, a combat-proven missile with a fearsome reputation. The Telegraph recounted how President Trump once praised the Tomahawk’s “pinpoint accuracy and destructive power” after a barrage on Iranian nuclear facilities, boasting that each missile “hit within a foot of where they were supposed to hit.” Satellite images confirmed the devastation, with entire buildings erased from the landscape. It’s no wonder Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky renewed his calls for Tomahawk donations during a recent meeting with Trump at the United Nations General Assembly.
Until now, Ukraine’s requests for Tomahawks had been rebuffed by the Biden administration, but the winds appear to be shifting. According to The Telegraph, Vice-President JD Vance and US Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg have publicly indicated support for Ukraine conducting long-range strikes inside Russia, with Kellogg stating, “There are no such things as sanctuaries.” The plan under consideration would see European governments pay for Tomahawk shipments to Ukraine through a NATO-led scheme, further internationalizing the effort.
The Tomahawk’s capabilities are formidable. With a range of up to 2,500 km, the missile can be launched from aircraft, ships, submarines, or the ground, flying at low altitude to evade enemy radar and using sophisticated sensors to find its targets. Its warhead is specifically engineered to destroy fortified command centers, ammunition depots, and military production sites—precisely the kinds of targets that could disrupt Russia’s war effort.
But the Tomahawk is not without its own limitations. It is expensive—recent Dutch procurement saw a price tag of roughly $12.5 million per missile—and production rates are modest, with the US manufacturing only 50 to 70 per year. Dr. Sidharth Kaushal of the RUSI think tank told The Telegraph, “While the Tomahawk is an expensive missile, the real issue as far as material goes is not price but production. The US produces 50 to 70 of the missiles a year and has expended hundreds in the Middle East.” With potential conflicts elsewhere, such as a possible confrontation over Taiwan, the US may be reluctant to part with enough Tomahawks to make a decisive impact in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, the US has already taken a significant step by agreeing to provide Ukraine with intelligence to enable long-range strikes on Russian energy infrastructure. Reuters reported that this intelligence sharing aims to facilitate attacks on refineries, pipelines, and power plants, with the goal of depriving the Kremlin of vital oil and gas revenues. President Trump’s decision marks the first major policy change since he hardened his stance toward Russia, and he has pressed European countries to stop buying Russian oil as part of a broader sanctions campaign.
The move has not gone unnoticed in Moscow. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has condemned the “supply and use of the entire infrastructure of NATO and the United States to collect and transfer intelligence to the Ukrainians,” while Russia’s former president Dmitry Medvedev warned that further US involvement could escalate the conflict to the point of “weapons of mass destruction.” Yet, as Keir Giles of Chatham House observed, “All the Russian hysterics promising escalation has tapped into Russia’s previous campaign of instilling a mortal fear of the word escalation in the previous US administration. Russia does this because it works.”
For Ukraine, the stakes could not be higher. With its own Flamingo long-range missile in early production—but with unknown quantities—Kyiv is seeking every advantage it can find. The addition of Tomahawks or Barracudas to its arsenal, especially when paired with US-provided targeting intelligence, could unlock new options for striking deep into Russian territory. However, as Dr. Kaushal cautioned, “the threat is a negotiating gambit rather than a realistic proposal, though of course events could prove me wrong.”
As the White House and its NATO allies debate next steps, the question remains: will the promise of new weapons and intelligence tip the balance in Ukraine’s favor, or will the realities of production limits, cost, and the ever-present specter of escalation keep the war grinding on? Only time—and the decisions made in the coming months—will tell.
