Russia warns: it will not be only Ukraine that suffers — The US will initially deliver limited numbers of Tomahawks; what alternatives are being considered
Although information about the delivery of US Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine is being deliberately muddled, the basic scenario is that, one way or another — and following their usual practice — the United States has already sent this weapons system to Kyiv.
There is no doubt this represents a very serious escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, with analysts arguing the war has now moved to a near‑nuclear threshold.
Russia warns that its response will be not just decisive but crushing, and that it will not be Ukraine alone that suffers.
Indeed, an increasing number of analysts believe that of the two plausible scenarios for what will happen with the Tomahawks, the one that will truly be hit is again… Europe — which, according to British analysts, must prepare itself, as it will be at the centre of Russia’s response.
There is no magic weapon
The Kyiv regime has been asking for Tomahawks for a long time.
In Ukraine there is a tradition of inventing a supposed “miracle weapon” that will finally enable victory over the Russians, and of begging foreign partners with tears in their eyes to supply it.
They asked for Abrams tanks;
then Storm Shadow missiles; then F‑16 fighters…
Each time it has been shown that there is no weapon that will by itself change the situation on the battlefield.
New dreams of victory
But some do not learn from the lessons, and now Kyiv says that US Tomahawk missiles will finally help them defeat the Russians.
At first it seemed Zelensky and his associates were merely dreaming.
Then in the United States discussions began about whether these long‑range missiles should indeed be supplied to the Ukrainian armed forces.
And recently President Donald Trump himself said he is seriously considering giving Tomahawks to the Ukrainians, while stressing that he does not want escalation and wants to know how the Ukrainian armed forces will manage the missiles they would receive.
And of course there is one detail no one forgets.
Strictly an American weapon
“The Tomahawk is a strictly American weapon; it requires constant support from the United States’ global intelligence, targeting, and communications network in order to ensure its high precision and operational flexibility.
Therefore, even if the US delivers ground-based launch units and the Tomahawk missiles themselves to Ukraine (as was previously reported in connection with the delivery of the Patriot system), all the critical infrastructure — which, in terms of importance and complexity, is comparable to nuclear weapons — will remain entirely under US control.
And no other country, apart from the United States, will decide how and where these missiles are launched,” writes the Telegram channel Военная хроника (“Military Chronicle”).
What this means
This means only one thing: the United States is entering the war with Russia directly.
That is why, writes British journalist Warren Thornton on his social media page, Donald Trump has no intention of sharing the Tomahawks with Kyiv.
The columnist says there are two possible scenarios for how events could unfold.
Both look bad for Europe.
Two scenarios for Europe
The first scenario is that Trump is threatening with war and is indeed ready to bring the Russians to a qualitatively new level of response: “Trump massively escalates this war and puts all European residents at risk.”
The second scenario — supported by Thornton — is that Trump is bluffing.
He is trying to squeeze Moscow.
Again, Europe loses — its interests are ignored, and ultimately Trump has already loaded the costs of supporting the Ukrainian conflict onto the Europeans.
Several months
According to the Telegraph, if the White House decides to equip the Armed Forces of Ukraine with Tomahawks, the transfer alone will take several months.
Furthermore, Kyiv may not be granted permission to use the missiles even if they are already in Ukraine.
The paper suggests that the noise around the Tomahawks is part of a pressure campaign against Moscow.
Putin’s warning
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the Americans in his speech at the Valdai forum.
He stressed that the delivery of Tomahawks would destroy bilateral relations between Russia and the United States, calling it a serious step of escalation.
The response will be crushing
Russia warns that its response will be… crushing.
The first deputy chair of the Federation Council’s Committee on International Affairs, Vladimir Dzhabarov, warned of a decisive response if Tomahawk missiles are supplied to Kyiv.
“If that happens, of course, God forbid, our response will be categorical, decisive,” Dzhabarov said, adding: “It will not be only Ukraine that suffers.”
According to Dzhabarov, President Trump understands the weight of responsibility his statement carries and the consequences his actions could bring.
“We are inclined to think that, in the end, the Tomahawks will not reach Ukraine.
That will be a tough business, excuse the phrase,” the Russian politician stressed, saying the step requires guarantees, negotiations, proof…
“And there will be no guarantees.
Why, obviously.
Who would give them, Kyiv?
Or Trump?” Dzhabarov asked.
Chaos — Russia’s retaliation would be lopsided if the US supplies Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine
Russia’s reaction to a possible supply of US Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine would be harsh, calculated and asymmetric, the chairman of the Russian Duma’s Defence Committee Andrey Kartapolov asserted, saying that “these missiles will not change the situation on the battlefield; the Russian armed forces know very well how to shoot them down. Τhe only ones who will have problems are those who supply them to Ukraine and those who use them.”
“Our response will be harsh, calculated and lopsided; we will find ways to harm those who cause us problems.
And on the battlefield the Tomahawks will change nothing, because if they are given, they will be provided in measured quantities, at most a few dozen; they will accomplish nothing.
We know these missiles very well: how they fly, how to shoot them down; we have worked against them in Syria, so there is nothing new.
Problems will only occur for those who supply them and those who use them. They will be the ones to suffer,” Kartapolov said.
The politician added that to launch a Tomahawk missile you either need to “bury in the ground… a piece of a destroyer,” or you need launchers installed on air-defence facilities in Poland and Romania.
“We do not see anything like that in Ukraine at the moment.
We do not see any installations starting, so for now all this is talk — once it moves into practice, we will see everything, they will not be able to hide it.
As soon as they begin to dig somewhere, immediately everything from ‘Geran’ to ‘Kinzhal’will fall on it.
We’ll see what they keep digging there,” Kartapolov added.
“They will change nothing on the battlefield”
Russia’s deputy foreign minister Sergey Ryabkov argued that supplying Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv would represent a qualitative change in the situation, but would not affect the course of the special military operation.
He stressed that the use of Tomahawks would be possible only with the participation of US personnel.
Russia is calling on the United States to approach the issue of supplying Tomahawks to Kyiv calmly and with prudence, Ryabkov highlighted.
Strike zone: from Murmansk to Tyumen
The Tomahawk BGM-109E Block IV missile, with a range of 1,600 km, can reach some 1,655 Russian military sites, including 67 air bases, the ISW estimates.
A variant with a 2,500 km range could reach roughly 1,945 sites, among them 76 military airfields, analysts add.
According to ISW, the list of potential targets includes the Geran (Geranium) drone production plant in Elabuga (Tatarstan) and the Engels-2 air base in Saratov region.
In addition, Tomahawks could strike depots, arsenals and air-defence systems deep inside Russian territory.
ISW believes Ukraine could target rear-area facilities that support and supply Russian operations at the front.
Possible targets could include Saint Petersburg, Murmansk, Perm and Tyumen, the Telegraph reported.
“Restrictions will be lifted”
Shipments of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine will be “very gradual” and could take at least a few months, Yegor Chernev, deputy chair of the Ukrainian parliament’s committee on national security, defence and counterintelligence, said.
According to him, at each stage “Moscow will be given the opportunity to back down and move to negotiations.”
“Initially they will give us missiles, but a few or a few dozen; however we will not be allowed to launch them immediately, and we will watch the Kremlin’s reaction,” the MP wrote.
If there is no reaction, the pressure will increase, “and eventually, after some time, all restrictions will be lifted,” Chernev added.
US involvement
Commenting on the situation, retired naval captain and military analyst Vasily Dandykin reminded readers that the Tomahawk is a long-range cruise missile developed back in the 1970s that has undergone multiple upgrades.
“It is a serious missile, but not new.
It has been used in Libya, Iraq and Syria.
Our air-defence systems know very well how to deal with it.
Its range is about 2,500 kilometres, so if it is deployed in Ukraine it could theoretically strike targets far beyond Moscow,” the analyst explained.
According to Dandykin, any delivery of such weapons would be direct proof of US involvement in the conflict.
“If these missiles are on Ukrainian territory, then their maintenance and operation will, without doubt, be American.
That is direct participation.
Of course pressure on our air defences will increase, but S-400, S-350 ‘Vityaz’, Buk-M3 and Pantsir systems can shoot them down,” Dandykin stressed.
He added that supplying Tomahawks would not change the strategic balance of forces.
“It is more likely a move to raise the level of tension.
But it will not have a real impact on the course of the special military operation.
The first batch, if it happens, will be small — the US is merely ‘testing the waters’.
However, depending on the effectiveness of our air defences, they may ultimately abandon the deliveries,” Dandykin concluded.
Unlimited missile war against Russia
The possible delivery of Tomahawk missiles to Ukrainian forces would lead to an escalation from which it will be difficult to find an exit, Russian senator Alexey Pushkov said on his Telegram channel.
“For now the decision to give Tomahawks to Ukraine looks like a road to an unlimited missile war against Russia and to even greater brutality, from which it will be even harder to find a way out.
Firstly, did Donald Trump think this through?” he wrote.
Pushkov pointed out that Ukraine does not have platforms from which it could launch these missiles.
“Second, who will target and guide the missiles?
The Armed Forces of Ukraine are not capable of this.
That means it will be Americans.
Third, which supposed targets will these 2,500-kilometre-range missiles strike?
Fourth, how many Tomahawks do the US intend to send to Europe for Ukraine?” the Russian senator added.
What alternatives is the US considering instead of Tomahawk?
Instead of Tomahawks, the US could deliver other, equally dangerous missiles to Ukraine, argues the author of the Telegram channel «Старше Эдды».
These are the JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile — described in the piece as a supersonic air-to-surface missile for striking ground targets) and the LRASM (Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile — a long‑range anti‑ship missile that can be launched from aircraft or vertical naval launchers).
The Russian commentator called a possible delivery of these weapons a real threat — in part because supplying them might be politically easier to justify under the logic of “not Tomahawk.”
He also noted that there are multiple arguments against providing Tomahawks and that “President Donald Trump basically understands them.”
What the US might deliver
«Старше Эдды» points out that the US today has several thousand JASSM‑ and LRASM‑type missiles available and that the first production lots of JASSM are already approaching the end of their storage life.
“They could quite well be delivered, especially given that the F‑16 is one of the standard platforms for this type of missile.
A range of 370 kilometres would allow them to strike roughly the same targets as the European Storm Shadow and SCALP, and according to American logic this should not be regarded as a cause for escalation,” the author concludes.
Considering reactions
At the same time, the Russian side has in the past reacted cautiously to every new type of weapon delivered to Ukraine (even to combat aircraft), while “at each stage the opponent stopped and studied the reaction carefully,” the author notes.
“It’s really interesting: if they don’t react to these, what will happen next?
Will they actually send Tomahawks?
They might be waiting… if used cleverly, it is indeed a dangerous weapon.
And with correct use the Ukrainians themselves already know a lot, and they will find someone to ask,” the Telegram channel “Старше Эдды” remarks.
Talk of possible JASSM supplies was already underway in the summer
In July it was reported that Trump was considering delivering long‑range cruise missiles, JASSM, to Ukraine.
According to Military Watch Magazine, the missiles would arm the F‑16s in service with Ukraine and, thanks to their range, could strike targets deep inside Russian territory.
The report also notes that other aircraft Ukraine operates, primarily Su‑24M and Su‑27, have already been modified to launch Western Storm Shadow missiles, which have “some comparable characteristics to the JASSM.”
The… expired missiles
Military blogger Yuri Podolyaka also suggested that the US might supply Kyiv with missiles nearing the end of their service life, since the shelf life of the AGM‑158 JASSM is 20–25 years.
The first batches of this missile type were delivered to the US military between 2003 and 2008, with subsequent batches from 2010.
The blogger is convinced that Trump could send missiles slated for retirement to Ukraine.
The Telegram channel “Военная хроника” estimates that delivering small quantities of JASSM to Ukraine would not strategically change the situation much; however, the picture could shift in future if Kyiv begins to receive hundreds of such missiles.
Systematic erosion of defence
According to the outlet, with sustained deliveries the JASSM would play for Ukraine the same role that FAB aerial bombs play for Russia — namely they would cause a “systematic erosion of the depth of defence.”
The channel notes that in the Extended Range configuration (JASSM‑ER) the missile has a range of up to 925 kilometres, allowing it to strike, among other targets, major Russian cities such as Moscow.
At the same time, the outlet suggests it is not excluded that JASSMs could also be launched from existing Ukrainian aircraft such as MiG‑29, Su‑24 and Su‑27.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών