Breaking News
Ukraine Secretly Requests US Tomahawk Missiles to Enable Long-Range Strikes in Conflict with Russia.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy confirmed on 30 October 2024 that he had formally requested long-range Tomahawk missiles from the United States to enhance Ukraine’s ability to target critical Russian infrastructure and deter future offensives. By acquiring these missiles, Ukraine could extend its strike range, with the potential to reach deep into Russian territory. However, this request carries substantial implications: while their delivery would provide Ukraine with crucial strategic depth, it would also intensify U.S. involvement, risk escalating tensions with Russia, and pose logistical and strategic challenges for the U.S., already facing military demands in other regions of the world.
A tomahawk cruise missile launches from the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Shoup during Valiant Shield 2018 (Picture source: US DoD)
The Tomahawk is an intermediate-range, subsonic cruise missile developed by the U.S. Navy with a long-range, deep-strike capability. Launched from naval ships or submarines, the Tomahawk provides a versatile and precise option for targeting critical infrastructure or high-value targets. The missile, which measures 5.55 meters without a booster, can carry a 454 kg warhead and is capable of delivering both conventional and, historically, nuclear payloads, although its nuclear role was phased out by policy. Over the years, numerous variants have been developed, each designed for specific missions: anti-ship, land-attack, and precision strikes on hardened or soft targets. The latest Block IV variant, also known as the Tactical Tomahawk, includes advanced features such as loitering capability, in-flight rerouting, and real-time battle damage assessment using its electro-optic sensor.
With a range of 1,250 to 2,500 km and powered by a turbofan engine, the Tomahawk can follow low-altitude flight paths, making it challenging to detect on radar. The missile's evolution has included significant upgrades, particularly the Block III and IV versions, which integrate GPS for enhanced targeting accuracy and improved fuel efficiency.
This functionality would make it an ideal asset for Ukraine, enabling real-time threat response or mission adjustments based on field conditions. Designed to fly at low altitudes and evade enemy radar, Tomahawks offer substantial range, allowing Ukraine to reach deep within Russian territory—well beyond the capabilities of systems currently available to Kyiv, such as ATACMS, which has a maximum range of 300 kilometers.
If Ukraine were to receive Tomahawk missiles, it raises an operational capacity issue—specifically, how Ukraine could effectively deploy these missiles. Currently, Ukraine lacks the Typhon ground-launch systems needed for such deployment, and the U.S. Army itself possesses only two Typhon batteries, each comprising four launchers, making it unlikely that an entire battery would be provided to Ukraine. However, the Typhon launcher is based on an improvised design: it utilizes the universal Mark 41 vertical launch system, originally designed for U.S. Navy surface ships, but mounted on a wheeled chassis for ground mobility. This setup suggests that alternative, non-standard solutions could be explored, similar to the makeshift "FrankenSAM" air defense system.
Ukrainian military analyst Serhiy Kuzan points out that this long-range strike capability could help balance forces, much like Russia’s Kalibr missiles, which have inflicted considerable damage on Ukrainian infrastructure since the conflict began. Adding to this perspective, a recent analysis by the U.S.-based Jamestown Foundation highlights twelve key factories in Russia that support its missile industry, located between 800 and 2,400 kilometers from Ukraine's border. Experts stress that hitting these facilities effectively would require advanced long-range capabilities. However, Ukraine has also sought U.S. permission to conduct strikes directly within Russian territory—a request Washington has not yet granted. If the U.S. were to supply Tomahawks, it could nevertheless be interpreted as informal permission for Kyiv to strike deep into Russian territory, despite the lack of official authorization.
However, logistical and material constraints make a large-scale delivery of Tomahawks to Ukraine unlikely. U.S. officials indicate that the number of missiles available is limited due to ongoing commitments in the Middle East and Asia. For an effective deterrent, Ukraine would require a significant number of missiles to pose a credible threat. Practically, several dozen missiles would be needed to establish a sufficiently dissuasive offensive capability, particularly against highly defended targets dispersed within Russia. Nevertheless, even in limited numbers, Tomahawks would offer Ukraine considerable tactical advantage, enabling targeted strikes on key military sites or command centers, potentially disrupting Russian logistics.
The delivery of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine would carry significant political implications, affecting U.S.-Ukraine relations and broader geopolitical dynamics with Russia. First, it would likely escalate tensions with Russia, as the missiles’ long-range capability would allow Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory, which Russia could interpret as a substantial escalation in Western support.
This could lead Moscow to increase retaliatory actions, either through direct military aggression or indirect economic and cyber means targeting Ukraine’s allies. Secondly, U.S.-Russia relations would suffer, with Russia likely viewing this as crossing a “red line” in Western involvement. This tension might prompt Russia to counter the move by supporting U.S. adversaries or expanding its influence in strategically significant regions, such as the Arctic or Latin America. Third, the delivery would have profound implications for European security and NATO cohesion.
Although NATO allies support Ukraine, advanced weaponry like Tomahawks could lead to diverging views within the alliance, as countries weigh the balance between aiding Ukraine and avoiding actions that may provoke Russia. Some European nations might even advocate for diplomatic efforts to prevent an escalation that could impact their own security. Furthermore, it could prompt a shift in Ukraine’s military strategy, allowing for a more offensive approach, which may complicate NATO support if perceived as high-risk. Fourth, it could set a precedent, pressuring NATO countries to supply comparable systems like Germany’s Taurus missiles to maintain alliance coherence. This could, however, lead to further internal debates as some members remain cautious about enabling strikes within Russian borders.
Finally, within the United States, the provision of Tomahawks would likely fuel domestic political debate. Some policymakers may argue against risking deeper involvement in the conflict, especially given the upcoming U.S. election and public opinion divided on support levels for Ukraine. Overall, the decision to supply Tomahawks would trigger complex political, military, and strategic repercussions across multiple fronts.