UKRAINE: Tomahawks before Christmas?

Now that the Israel–Gaza conflict has been “resolved,” attention is gradually shifting back to Ukraine. Unfortunately, the United States once again appears to be siding with the wrong side.

In this blog post, we’ll take a look at what has happened over the past few days and discuss the implications of these events.

ANOTHER MEETING AT THE WHITE HOUSE

Yesterday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with his U.S. counterpart, Donald Trump. A key topic of discussion was whether the United States would agree to supply Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. The meeting ended without any firm commitments, which came as little surprise to observers.

A day earlier, Trump had spoken by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Following the call, Trump announced plans to meet Putin in Budapest for a future summit — a move that has raised concerns among U.S. allies about Washington’s current approach to the conflict.

These developments have left many questioning the direction of American policy toward the war. While Ukraine continues to plead for stronger military support, the White House’s cautious stance risks sending mixed signals that could embolden Moscow and weaken Western unity.

Zelenskyy once again found himself in an awkward position during this visit. Upon arrival, there was no official U.S. delegation to greet him at the airport — only staff from the Ukrainian Embassy were present. For many observers, the absence of any senior American representatives underscored the cooling tone of Washington’s relationship with Kyiv.

Adding to the tension, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth drew attention by wearing a tie featuring the colors of the Russian flag during the meeting. Though it may have been coincidental, the gesture was widely noted online and in the media, with critics calling it an unfortunate symbol at a time when Ukraine is struggling to maintain Western support in its war against Russia.

The end result was that USA refused to hand over the Tomahawks for now, citing that "we need them, too." 

WHAT ARE TOMAHAWK MISSILES?

Tomahawk missiles are long-range, precision-guided cruise missiles developed by the United States. Designed primarily for use against high-value land and sea targets, they can be launched from ships or submarines and strike targets more than 1,000 miles away.

Tomahawks fly at low altitudes and use advanced guidance systems — including GPS, inertial navigation, and terrain-matching radar — to navigate accurately through defended airspace. Because of their versatility and pinpoint accuracy, they have become a cornerstone of U.S. and NATO strike capabilities since their first use in the 1991 Gulf War.

There are several variants of the Tomahawk missi, including odels capable of re-targeting mid-flight and striking moving naval targets. Each missile carries either a conventional or, historically, a nuclear warhead. Their ability to deliver powerful precision strikes without risking pilots makes them a valuable strategic asset in modern warfare. For Ukraine, access to Tomahawk missiles would represent a significant leap in long-range strike capability — allowing it to target critical Russian infrastructure and logistics hubs far beyond the front lines.

However, a major limitation for Ukraine is that it currently lacks the necessary launch platforms for Tomahawk missiles. These weapons are typically fired from U.S. and allied naval vessels or specialized submarine systems, not from land-based launchers that Ukraine possesses. Without compatible launch infrastructure, even if Washington agreed to supply the missiles, they would be of little immediate use. Developing or adapting ground-based launchers would require significant time, resources, and technical support — delays that Ukraine cannot afford amid ongoing Russian offensives.

WHAT WAS RUSSIA'S RESPONSE TO THIS?

Russia’s response to the Tomahawk discussions was swift and predictably defiant. The Kremlin dismissed the talks as “provocative rhetoric” and warned that any delivery of long-range Western missiles to Ukraine would be viewed as a direct threat to Russian national security.

On top of those fears, it has been discussed in the media that Moscow itself could fall within range of Ukrainian strikes if Tomahawks were deployed — a prospect that would undoubtedly make President Putin uneasy. It is critical for his regime’s stability to preserve a sense of normality in Moscow and St. Petersburg, shielding these cities from the direct realities of the war.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova claimed that such a move would “escalate tensions to an irreversible level” and vowed that Moscow would respond with “appropriate countermeasures.” State-controlled media quickly amplified this message, portraying the potential U.S.–Ukraine missile deal as proof that Washington seeks to prolong the conflict rather than pursue peace.

At the same time, Russian officials sought to exploit divisions within NATO by suggesting that several European allies were privately uneasy about transferring Tomahawks. The narrative from Moscow framed the discussions as a sign of U.S. desperation and Ukrainian weakness, arguing that long-range missiles would not alter the “inevitable outcome” of Russia’s campaign.

Behind the propaganda, however, analysts noted signs of genuine concern in the Kremlin. The Tomahawk’s range and precision could threaten key military command centers, supply depots, and airbases deep inside Russian territory — assets that have so far remained largely out of Ukraine’s reach.

CONCLUSION 

The past week has highlighted the fragile balance of global power as attention shifts back to Ukraine. While Kyiv continues to fight for survival, its appeals for stronger U.S. support have met hesitation, leaving both allies and adversaries reassessing America’s role in the conflict. The proposed delivery of Tomahawk missiles has become a flashpoint — symbolizing both Ukraine’s desperate need for advanced weaponry and Washington’s reluctance to risk further escalation.

Meanwhile, Moscow’s sharp response underscores how seriously it views the potential threat of Western long-range missiles. As diplomatic maneuvering continues, the stakes are growing higher for all sides. Whether this moment leads to renewed deterrence or deeper division will depend on how decisively — and carefully — the United States and its partners choose to act in the critical weeks ahead.