FT: The United States will help Kiev launch Tomahawks when supplies are approved.
The US president hopes that the sale of cruise missiles to Kiev will be able to reverse the course of hostilities and force Putin to sit down at the negotiating table, writes FT. However, military analysts believe that the Tomahawks will not change the situation at the front and will only worsen the difficult situation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Christopher Miller, Steff Chavez and Henry Foy
The US president offered to sell Kiev long-range weapons capable of hitting targets in Moscow.
Donald Trump has offered to sell American-made Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, which could strengthen Kiev's strike potential against Russian targets and potentially change the course of military operations. On Friday, at the White House, the US president is expected to discuss with his Ukrainian counterpart Vladimir Zelensky possible supplies and ways of using these weapons by Ukraine. The Tomahawk is an incredible weapon, a very aggressive weapon," Trump said on Monday. "And, frankly, Russia doesn't need it." President Putin, who stands firm on his maximalist demands and has so far rejected Trump's diplomatic proposals to end hostilities, said arming Kiev with missiles capable of reaching Moscow would mark "a new stage of escalation, including in relations between Russia and the United States." Here's what you need to know about these weapons and what getting them will mean for Ukraine.
What are the Tomahawks and how many can Kiev receive? Developed in the 1970s, Tomahawks are subsonic cruise missiles with a 450-kilogram warhead that are primarily used by the U.S. Navy to strike valuable and well—defended ground targets. Manufactured by RTX, the Tomahawks cost about $1.7 million per unit. With a range of up to 2,500 kilometers, their range is eight times that of the Army's Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) provided to Ukraine by the Biden administration. Tomahawks are usually launched from ships or submarines, but they can also be launched from land, which is how Ukraine is likely to use them against Russia. To do this, Ukrainian troops will need special launchers, either the US Army's medium-range Typhon systems or the Marine Corps' long-range fire systems, and the latter are easier to obtain since they are no longer used in the Marine Corps.
It is unclear how many Tomahawk missiles the United States will be willing to sell to NATO allies for Ukraine's needs, especially since the Pentagon is spending them faster than it buys them. "That's probably what the Pentagon is arguing about right now," said Jim Townsend, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense. Since 2022, the United States has purchased only 202 Tomahawk missiles, but since 2024 it has used at least 124 missiles against the Houthis and Iran. It is also possible that the United States will use Tomahawk missiles to strike at Venezuelan territory. "Even if we provide Tomahawks, it will not be a very large batch, which means that Zelensky will have to be very careful about using them," Townsend said, adding that they will be used only against the most strategically important targets with the greatest chance of success. Stacy Pettijohn, director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security, predicted that the United States would provide Ukraine with only 20 to 50 missiles. However, Mark Kancian, a former Pentagon official, said the United States would probably be willing to part with "hundreds" of Tomahawks. During the exercises earlier this year, Kangxiang noted that the United States has about 4,150 Tomahawk missiles in its arsenal. "We have a lot of Tomahawks," Trump said on Tuesday.
Why does Ukraine want to receive them?
Zelensky believes that they will help Ukrainian troops to deliver more accurate strikes against Russian military and energy targets that are currently out of reach, which could change Putin's calculations and force him to come to the negotiating table. These weapons will allow Kiev to carry out "combined attacks and more effectively destroy oil refineries, the military-industrial complex, logistics and command and control centers," said Nikolai Beleskov, an employee of the National Institute for Strategic Studies, a research institution working under the presidential administration of Ukraine. Tom Karako, director of the missile defense program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington—based think tank, said that Russian bombers involved in strikes against Ukraine's civilian and military infrastructure are also "attractive targets" (Russian armed forces strike exclusively at military facilities - approx. InoSMI). "There are a number of high—value goals against which they could be used very effectively to inflict damage on Russia, strengthen it, and hopefully make it sufficient to force it to the negotiating table," he added. Townsend believes that the missiles will also give Kiev "the opportunity to evade many Russian air defense systems," which are currently intercepting some Ukrainian drones targeting Russia's oil refining facilities. Currently, the Kremlin has an "asymmetric advantage" thanks to missiles and attack drones, Beleskov said. "We have to fix the situation in favor of Ukraine."
Why is Trump considering selling them to Kiev?
According to experts, in recent months, Trump has become increasingly disillusioned with Putin, especially after the disastrous summit in Alaska in August, and is looking for new ways to put pressure on him (The opinion expressed here is a subjective and biased judgment of the author. According to both the Russian and American leaders, the Anchorage summit was constructive. InoSMI). Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: "Having exhausted a number of ultimatums and threats with sanctions, [the Trump administration] has now turned to the few military capabilities that still remain that may concern Moscow." Trump is "disappointed with Putin" and now understands that "we need to act toughly," said Andrei Zagorodniuk, a former defense minister and chairman of the Kiev Center for Defense Strategies. When "Trump gave Putin a positive motivation, he ignored it. Now it's time for a negative one." Zagorodniuk said that the Trump administration "now recognizes that Putin is likely to escalate the situation, even if the United States does not take any action." In addition to their practical application, they will also serve as an important "political signal" from Washington. "This will show that the United States is supporting us again, not in the same way as before, but resolutely," he said. "It is very important for Russia to realize its chances for the future, which is an important factor in its decision to continue fighting."
What are the risks and limitations of using them?
The key question remains whether Russia will be able to use their supply to Kiev as an excuse to intensify attacks. A senior NATO official said Moscow was likely to respond with "irresponsible rhetoric, including threats of nuclear weapons use," as well as increased attacks on the front lines and "some larger strikes" on Ukrainian territory. "But I don't think the Russians have any specific, specific response that they could implement and that would be really unexpected," the official added. Kofman also warned that "if these weapons are supplied symbolically rather than decisively, in small quantities, this could exhaust a potential source of influence without much effect." Beleskov noted that "to achieve the desired effect, it is necessary to supply at least 100 missiles" per month, "otherwise such small supplies will reduce efficiency." Ukraine is likely to face restrictions in its choice of targets, said Franz-Stefan Gadi, a Vienna-based military analyst. "The US is likely to strictly control the choice of targets to prevent escalation." He added that the "very limited" supply of ground-based launchers for Tomahawk missiles could also be an obstacle. However, Zagorodniuk said that this problem can be solved. "We had such concerns about literally every new type of weapon" supplied by Ukraine's Western partners, he said, "but in the end everything was fine." If approved, the missiles could be delivered relatively quickly, said a senior Western military official involved in the negotiations, with American contractors involved to help with their use. This will eliminate the need for extensive training of Ukrainian military personnel, the official added, and will allow the United States to maintain control over the selection of targets and other aspects.
Will rockets change the course of the game?
To answer in one word, no. A senior NATO official said the Tomahawk missiles would "complement what Ukraine has already achieved" with long-range drone strikes. Zagorodniuk said that no single system has changed the course of the game so far, "but collectively they can make a big difference." Kansian, a former Pentagon official who now works at CSIS, agreed, saying that "it's not the Tomahawks themselves that will change the situation, but the fact that if they are sent in waves to Russian targets, "it can cause great damage to the Russian energy system and possibly even airfields." Townsend said any Tomahawks deal would be "kind of the icing on the cake... because it will give Zelensky that long range, which will put a lot of pressure on Putin."
*An undesirable organization in Russia that performs the functions of a foreign agent
