The US is considering sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, which could escalate tensions with Russia.
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has entered a new phase of strategic tension, one where the political will to arm a proxy force directly confronts the established norms of great power relations. At the center of this geopolitical vortex is the American-made Tomahawk cruise missile, a long-range weapon system that promises to be a “game-changer” for Kyiv but which Moscow views as an existential red line.
US President Donald Trump recently indicated he has “sort of made a decision” on supplying the potent Tomahawks to Ukraine, immediately qualifying his stance with a strategic pause. “I think I want to find out what they’re doing with them,” the President told reporters, adding, “Where are they sending them? I guess I’d have to ask that question. I would ask some questions. I’m not looking to escalate that war.”
This cautious remark from Washington follows a sharp and unequivocal warning from Russian President Vladimir Putin. In a video clip released over the weekend, Putin delivered a stark caution against providing Ukraine with the deep-strike capability of the Tomahawk.
Tomahawk missiles are Moscow’s biggest fear because of their 2,500-kilometer range. If Ukraine gets them, the whole war changes. These missiles can strike deep inside Russia, putting even the capital, Moscow, at risk.
Russia views this as a direct threat to its national survival. They call it a “biopolitical threat” to their control over major cities. Furthermore, Moscow warns that using Tomahawks needs American military personnel for targeting. Russia would see this as direct US military involvement, marking a “qualitatively new stage of escalation.”
The discourse around Western military aid is not solely focused on what new weapons Kyiv might receive, but also what Russia is already leveraging. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has recently intensified his criticism of allied nations, including the US and UK, after forensic analysis of Russian drones used in recent attacks revealed tens of thousands of foreign-made components, primarily from Western countries.
This revelation exposes a critical biopolitical vulnerability: the failure to effectively manage and control the global technological supply chains, effectively leaking sensitive components to a hostile power. The very nations providing aid to help Ukraine protect its population are inadvertently contributing to the Russian war machine that attacks the same population, creating a paradoxical feedback loop in the biopolitics of global manufacturing and conflict.
1. Strategic Shift in Deterrence: Granting Tomahawks would be a decisive shift from a strategy of “slow bleed” to a strategy of “direct threat” against Russia’s sovereign territory. It changes the perceived cost-benefit calculation for the Kremlin, raising the specter of targeting strategic assets like military bases, logistics hubs, and energy infrastructure far from the current frontlines.
2.The Logistics and Feasibility Question: Despite the strong rhetoric, US officials have privately cast doubt on the immediate feasibility of the transfer, citing limited inventories committed to the US Navy and the complexity of integrating the weapon’s ground-launch systems (like the Typhon) and sensitive targeting technology into Ukrainian forces. The decision may be more of a geopolitical lever a calculated ambiguity to pressure Moscow than an imminent military action.
3.Sovereignty and Red Lines: The exchange underscores a fundamental disagreement on the biopolitical rights of the belligerents. For Ukraine, the ability to strike back at the source of attacks deep within Russia is a necessary means of self-defense and population protection. For Russia, the Tomahawk’s range constitutes an unacceptable breach of its sovereign cordon sanitaire and a profound risk of direct conflict with NATO.
Trump’s “sort of” decision leaves the most dangerous diplomatic door slightly ajar, maintaining maximum leverage while still acknowledging the severe risk of igniting a complete collapse of US-Russia relations a collapse Putin has explicitly framed as leading to “destruction.” The world waits to see if a question about a weapon’s final destination becomes the trigger for the next, most volatile phase of the conflict.
