The United States continues to discuss potential deliveries of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, but signals from Washington indicate significant skepticism. Formally, the issue is framed as part of a new aid package, but behind the scenes, officials admit that transferring long-range munitions could prove too risky and costly. The talk about Tomahawks seems more like testing the waters — gauging the reaction of allies, Moscow, and the global community.
Tomahawk missiles are highly specialized and expensive. The U.S. has produced about nine thousand since the program began in the 1980s, but current annual output is modest — between 55 and 90 missiles. In the next Pentagon budget, only 57 are planned for purchase. The main consumer is the Navy, which uses them on destroyers and submarines for long-range precision strikes. Any foreign transfer would require reallocating existing stockpiles and could impact America’s own ability to deter threats in other regions, including the Pacific.
Sources within U.S. agencies acknowledge that the obstacles are not only about numbers but also politics. Transferring weapons capable of striking hundreds of kilometers deep into enemy territory could trigger new tensions and accusations of direct U.S. involvement in the conflict. There is discussion that European allies could purchase alternative medium-range missiles and then transfer them to Kyiv, reducing America’s direct responsibility. However, even this option currently looks like a backup plan — vague and uncertain.
Instead of long-range Tomahawks, another path is being considered to strengthen Ukraine’s capabilities — providing intelligence and permission to strike targets tied to energy and military logistics. This approach lowers the risk of open escalation but still expands the scope of support. In parallel, the U.S. is discussing sending smaller cruise systems with shorter ranges but still able to hit infrastructure precisely.
Moscow has already responded sharply: officials declare that supplying Tomahawks would be seen as crossing a red line. Doubts are voiced about who would operate the complex weapons — Ukrainian crews or U.S.-trained specialists. Russia also insists that the arrival of such missiles would not change the strategic situation on the battlefield, but the very need to make these statements shows that the issue is taken seriously.
A scenario of actually transferring Tomahawks is unlikely to materialize soon — the political and military risks are too high, and the stockpile is too limited. But the very fact of public discussion already serves as a signal: the U.S. is exploring new ways to apply pressure and is ready to raise the stakes, though still unwilling to cross lines that could lead to direct confrontation. For Kyiv, this is a sign that support persists but will remain cautious and pragmatic. For other players, it’s a reminder that the question of long-range missiles is a tool of political bargaining and leverage — not a decision to be implemented tomorrow.
