Trump Weighs Supplying Tomahawk Missiles to Ukraine, Opening Door to Deep Strikes in Russia

President Donald Trump is reportedly weighing a major reversal in U.S. policy on the war in Ukraine: the possible provision of Tomahawk cruise missiles, Vice President J.D. Vance said on the record. "We are having conversations this very minute about that issue," Vance told a Sunday broadcast, adding that Mr. Trump would make a "final determination."

On the same day, Trump's envoy to Kyiv, Keith Kellogg, urged Ukraine to "use the ability to hit deep," a comment he later said reflected public statements rather than a newly issued White House order. The combined effect of these remarks, however, is clear: the administration either seriously contemplates supplying Tomahawks — long-range, precision cruise missiles — or intends to signal that possibility to Moscow.

The Tomahawk became widely known during the 1991 Gulf War and has typically been provided only to close U.S. partners. Modern variants, including the Block IV, can be retasked in flight and relay targeting data back to operators, giving them exceptional flexibility and reach. Reports indicate the U.S. would likely sell the missiles to European partners for transfer to Ukraine rather than deliver them directly, but that technicality would not likely soothe Kremlin concerns about a significant escalation.

What this could mean on the battlefield
Ukraine has already demonstrated an ability to strike deep into Russian territory using long-range drones and inventive tactics — including reported strikes on oil refineries and operations that targeted airfields in Siberia. Tomahawks, with their extended range and precision, would present a qualitatively different challenge to Russia's air defenses and could put major government and defense facilities, including targets in and around Moscow, within reach.

Strategic ambiguity and forensics
One question is whether future strikes would be cloaked in strategic ambiguity so they appear to originate from Ukrainian systems rather than U.S.-supplied weapons. In practice, missile debris and forensic analysis can often reveal the weapon type, making sustained concealment difficult. If Tomahawks were used, Moscow would likely feel compelled to respond in some manner.

Precedents and possible Russian responses
Two recent episodes offer context. First, the Biden administration's transfer of ATACMS allowed Kyiv to strike farther into Russian-held areas; Moscow responded with the launch of a new missile system, the so-called Oreshnik, which analysts judged more saber-rattling than a decisive technical leap. Second, past Trump-era proposals — such as threats of broad secondary tariffs on countries buying Russian oil — show a pattern of aggressive posturing that sometimes stops short of the most extreme measures once political and diplomatic costs are weighed.

Diplomatic stakes and likely outcomes
The Tomahawk debate sits at the intersection of military capability and geopolitics. Supplying these missiles would materially increase Kyiv's strike options and raise the risk of direct escalation with Moscow. At the same time, political considerations — including the president's relationships and the broader aim of preserving diplomatic channels — could temper a final decision. The outcome will depend on a mix of military assessments, allied coordination, and the administration's appetite for escalation.

Names quoted or referenced: J.D. Vance, Keith Kellogg, Volodymyr Zelensky, Vladimir Putin.