Why Russia Strongly Opposes U.S. Plans to Supply Tomahawk Missiles to Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that if the United States goes ahead with supplying Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine, it would destroy the recent improvement in U.S.–Russia relations and push the conflict into a dangerous new phase. His warning came less than two months after U.S. President Donald Trump and Putin held a summit in Alaska, which was initially seen as a small step toward stabilizing relations. However, that hope now appears to be fading as Russian forces continue to advance in Ukraine, U.S. officials discuss arming Kyiv with deep-strike weapons, and tensions grow between the world’s two largest nuclear powers.

According to reports, Washington has been considering a Ukrainian request for Tomahawk missiles that could hit targets as far as 2,500 kilometers away — a range that would put almost all of European Russia, including Moscow, within reach. Although a final decision has not been made, discussions within the Trump administration have reportedly intensified after Ukrainian forces expressed interest in acquiring long-range strike capabilities. Vice President JD Vance confirmed that the idea was under review, while some U.S. defense officials cautioned that available stockpiles of Tomahawks are already committed to the U.S. Navy and other defense needs, making the transfer difficult in practice.

For Russia, the issue goes beyond simple weapon supply. The Kremlin believes that if Ukraine receives Tomahawk missiles, the United States would have to play a direct role in their operation, since such advanced systems require American targeting and technical support. In Moscow’s view, that would mean U.S. military personnel becoming indirectly involved in combat operations inside Russia, something Putin described as a “qualitatively new stage of escalation.” He said that while Russia could intercept many of these missiles and continue improving its air defense network, their deployment would fundamentally alter the character of the war and make direct confrontation with Washington almost inevitable.

One of the main reasons Russia fears the arrival of Tomahawk missiles is the country’s geographical scale. Russia is so vast that it cannot provide uniform air defense coverage across all regions. Its systems must be deployed selectively, protecting key strategic and industrial zones while leaving other areas less defended. Ukraine has already demonstrated its intent to strike not just military installations but also oil refineries, depots, and energy facilities deep inside Russian territory. If Kyiv gains weapons with a range exceeding 2,000 kilometers, the number of potential targets will multiply dramatically. Unlike smaller countries such as Israel, which can protect its entire territory with a limited number of missile defense batteries, Russia’s continental size makes such comprehensive coverage impossible. This geographic disadvantage is why Moscow views long-range Western missiles as an unacceptable threat, even if the individual weapon is not unstoppable.

Despite this, Russian officials often downplay the Tomahawk’s technical capabilities. The missile, while reliable, is not invincible. Its accuracy rate is estimated to be around 70 to 80 percent based on past operations, including those in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is also not new technology; Pakistan once recovered an unexploded Tomahawk fired during the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan and used it for reverse engineering, leading to the development of its own cruise missile. For Russia, the issue is therefore less about the weapon’s performance and more about the political and strategic implications of its use by Ukraine.

Putin’s statements also reflect his broader narrative about Russia’s relationship with the West. He often argues that the current conflict represents a turning point in Moscow’s post–Cold War history — a reaction to what he calls decades of Western encroachment on Russian influence after the fall of the Soviet Union. The expansion of NATO, in his view, eroded Russia’s security environment and left it with no choice but to assert its power in Ukraine. Western governments, meanwhile, see the situation differently. They describe Russia’s invasion as an act of aggression aimed at reestablishing imperial dominance. Western leaders insist that unless Moscow is defeated, it will eventually threaten NATO members — a claim Putin repeatedly denies.

The U.S. debate over Tomahawk missiles underscores this clash of narratives. Supporters of the idea in Washington argue that Ukraine needs the ability to strike deeper into Russian territory to weaken Moscow’s military logistics and energy infrastructure. Opponents warn that such a step could escalate the conflict beyond control, especially if Russia interprets it as direct U.S. participation in the war. Intelligence reports also indicate that Washington has already been sharing targeting information with Kyiv for strikes on energy infrastructure inside Russia, suggesting that coordination between the two is already deep.

For Russia, therefore, the proposed missile transfer is seen as both a military and political red line. Even if Tomahawks are not ultimately supplied, the very discussion signals to Moscow that Washington is willing to consider actions that could undermine any remaining diplomatic ties. The Kremlin’s warnings are designed to deter such a move and to remind the U.S. of the potential costs of escalation. Putin has made it clear that while Russia could adapt militarily to such a threat, the consequences for U.S.–Russia relations would be severe and long-lasting.

Russia’s opposition is driven by a combination of strategic geography, political calculation, and the fear of direct confrontation. The Tomahawk missile itself may not be the most advanced or decisive weapon on the battlefield, but its deployment in Ukraine would mark a profound shift — turning what began as a regional conflict into a contest that directly tests the limits of great-power restraint.