A potential turning point is quietly taking shape in Washington. According to multiple U.S. and European media outlets, the Trump administration is weighing whether to send Ukraine new long-range strike capabilities — including the cutting-edge Barracuda cruise missile and the battle-proven Tomahawk. These weapons, with ranges approaching 800–900 kilometers, would give Kyiv the ability to hit deep inside Russian territory, far beyond the current front lines. This discussion signals a deeper recalibration of U.S. military aid. While Washington has previously provided advanced air defense systems and long-range drones, introducing missiles of this caliber could dramatically expand Ukraine’s reach — and raise the stakes of the conflict.
The Barracuda, developed by defense tech company Anduril, is a relatively new entrant to the U.S. arsenal. Compact and stealthy, it’s designed to deliver precision strikes against critical infrastructure and command centers. Sources cited by The Wall Street Journal and defense analysts say it’s engineered to fly low and fast, evading radar while carrying a warhead capable of disabling critical power infrastructure, supply hubs, and military bases. Paired with Tomahawk cruise missiles — a system with a long history of U.S. naval operations — Ukraine could gain an unprecedented ability to target logistics hubs, airfields, and weapon stockpiles hundreds of kilometers from the front. That range fundamentally changes Russia’s perception of safe zones and would force it to invest heavily in deeper air defense networks.
The Pentagon is also exploring ways to expand real-time intelligence sharing, which could help Ukraine select and validate targets far beyond occupied territory. U.S. intelligence has quietly supported Ukrainian strikes before, but this step would formalize and scale that cooperation.
Kremlin officials have already warned of “serious consequences” if such missiles are delivered, though Moscow has offered no specifics beyond promises of “an adequate response.” Russian state media has also framed the potential transfer as a direct escalation by Washington, describing the Barracuda and Tomahawk as “offensive strike weapons” capable of reaching cities and strategic assets deep within Russia. European allies appear divided. Some NATO members — especially those closest to Russia’s borders — argue that denying Ukraine deep-strike capability leaves it vulnerable to Russian logistics and missile launch sites. Others worry about provoking retaliation or crossing what Moscow might see as a red line. In Washington, the debate reportedly balances strategic advantage against escalation risk. Advocates say Ukraine needs new tools to pressure Russian supply chains and airfields that launch strikes against civilian infrastructure. Critics warn that longer-range strikes on Russian soil could complicate diplomatic efforts and trigger unpredictable retaliation.
If the U.S. goes forward, the shift will be more than symbolic. Long-range precision weapons could disrupt Russian oil depots, railway hubs, and air bases that feed the front, potentially reshaping the tempo of the war. Moscow would likely be forced to disperse assets, invest in deeper-layered air defenses, and prepare for sustained strikes across its interior. For Ukraine, this would mean new leverage — the ability to strike not just at the edges of the battlefield but at the arteries of Russia’s war machine. It could weaken Moscow’s capacity to sustain its offensive and buy Kyiv valuable breathing room. But the move also risks intensifying the conflict’s global impact. Russian officials have hinted at possible countermeasures, from targeting Western supply lines to ramping up cyber and hybrid operations. Global energy markets could feel the impact if Ukraine begins hitting refineries or storage hubs, and Europe would need to brace for further pressure on its security architecture.
No decision has been finalized yet. Officials caution that the internal U.S. debate is ongoing, and President Trump’s team is carefully weighing options before making a formal move. Yet the fact that Washington is openly considering Barracuda and Tomahawk deliveries signals how far the conversation has moved from early caution to active contemplation of long-range strike capabilities. The calculus is clear: as the war drags on and Ukraine faces intense pressure on multiple fronts, providing tools to hit deeper into Russian territory could be a game-changer — not just militarily but geopolitically. It would also test the limits of Western resolve, Moscow’s red lines, and the fragile balance that has so far kept the war from expanding beyond Ukraine’s borders. For now, the discussion alone is reshaping the narrative of U.S. support — from defending Ukrainian skies to enabling strategic strikes with precision and reach few other systems can match. Whether Washington makes that leap could define the next phase of the conflict.
