Tomahawks, Trump and the Perilous Calculus of Escalation
In a development that could reshape the next phase of the war in Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump is reported to be preparing to host Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a working lunch in Washington this week as discussions intensify over the possible provision of long‑range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Kyiv.
- Advertisement -
The meeting, disclosed to reporters by multiple U.S. sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because plans have not been publicly announced, comes after two recent phone conversations between the presidents and ahead of a visit to Washington by a senior Ukrainian delegation. At stake are issues that have loomed over the conflict since Russia’s full‑scale invasion in 2022: air defence, the next tranche of weapons deliveries, and whether giving Ukraine the capability to strike deep into Russian territory is a step toward war termination—or a risky leap into a new, more dangerous chapter.
What the Tomahawks would change
Tomahawk cruise missiles have a range in the order of 2,500 kilometres — sufficient to reach well inside Russian territory, including Moscow. That capacity is precisely why Kyiv has been pressing Western capitals for them: commanders in Kyiv argue that the missiles could be used to hit rear logistics, ammunition dumps, airfields and other purely military targets that sustain Russia’s front‑line operations.
“We never attacked their civilians. This is the big difference between Ukraine and Russia,” Zelensky told Fox News in recent taped remarks, insisting any long‑range weapons would be used only for military objectives. The Ukrainian leader has framed such capabilities as a way to hasten an end to the conflict on terms that preserve Ukrainian sovereignty.
President Trump has signalled he is weighing the move — and has said publicly he might even raise the possibility with Russian President Vladimir Putin. “Yeah, I might tell him … we may very well do it,” Trump told reporters, adding he wanted assurances about how the weapons would be used so as not to provoke uncontrollable escalation.
Limits, loopholes and logistics
The United States has made clear it would not directly sell or hand Tomahawks to Ukraine; rather, the mechanism under discussion would see the missiles transferred via NATO partners. That legal and bureaucratic detour reflects a narrow attempt to manage political risk while still supplying Ukraine with advanced capabilities.
Yet the mechanics do not remove the strategic question: does allowing Kyiv to target assets deep in Russia deter Moscow, or draw it into a broader conflagration? Russian officials have offered a blunt answer. President Putin warned that such a transfer would represent “a qualitatively new stage of escalation,” arguing that the use of Tomahawks would imply direct U.S. participation. Whether that interpretation would hold in the capitals of Europe and Washington is the central ambiguity of the policy debate.
Why leaders in Kyiv and Washington are at a crossroads
For Zelensky, the argument is straightforward and personal: Kyiv needs the firepower to impose costs on the Kremlin and deny it freedom of action. For Western leaders, it is a calculus of deterrence versus dilution—how to strengthen Ukraine without crossing a threshold that triggers a full‑scale direct confrontation between nuclear-armed states.
Inside the U.S., the debate sits alongside political realities. Trump’s approach to Russia has been an oscillation between pressure and conciliation; his public musings about negotiating directly with Putin on whether to arm Kyiv with Tomahawks underscore how tightly this issue intertwines foreign policy and presidential temperament.
European solidarity and the grinding realities on the ground
Complicating the picture further are developments on the ground. Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas — a visible and vocal European backer of Kyiv — is in Ukraine for talks about financial and military support and to discuss the security of the country’s energy infrastructure. Her presence highlights how European leaders are trying to keep Kyiv supplied and resilient, even as debates rumble in Washington.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s campaign to degrade Russia’s control over occupied regions continues in shadowy, kinetic ways. Russian-installed authorities in Crimea reported a Ukrainian drone strike on a fuel depot in Feodosia that set storage tanks alight; Moscow said more than 20 drones were shot down, and no casualties were reported. Attacks on energy and logistics nodes have become a recurring feature as peace negotiations have stalled.
Global lessons and the danger of normalising escalation
There are broader implications beyond this particular weapons question. The world is witnessing a slow recalibration of the rules of intervention: not only whether to provide lethal aid but where the line is between assisting an ally and becoming a party to a conflict. Smaller wars are already reshaping global norms about long‑range strike, proxy escalation and the flow of advanced arms across alliance networks. How these norms evolve will matter for crises from the South China Sea to the Middle East.
There are no easy answers. Would Tomahawks actually reduce bloodshed by crippling Russia’s ability to sustain operations — or would they harden a Moscow that has framed the conflict as existential? Can a transfer of weapons via NATO serve as a legal buffer or is it merely a bureaucratic fig leaf? And what signal would such a move send to other states watching the U.S. as an arbiter of force?
When the two presidents meet, they will carry not only the immediate tactical arguments but the weight of a decision with ripple effects across capitals and battlefields. The choices they make — and how they explain them to wary publics — will help define whether the next stage of this war is decisive, protracted or catastrophically wider.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
