Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
AS Russia The bombing continues ukraine With drone attacks, President Volodymyr Zelensky has made Repeated And urgent demands are increasing rapidly Kyiv Gaining access to more powerful and detailed weapons.
made in usa axe There may be an answer to his problems. Access to a long-range missile, a weapon with enormous capability to deliver precision strikes deep into enemy territory, would give Ukraine a new kind of military power – and it may not be as far away as it was before.
donald trump has renewed pressure and threatened to send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine Vladimir Putin To end the war. with zelensky ready to go to washington On Friday, leaders said the provision of weapons would be a major topic of discussion.
If Trump follows through on his threats, Ukraine could significantly expand its strike capabilities, enabling it to strike targets inside Russian territory, including military bases, logistics hubs, airfields and command centers that are currently beyond reach.
But experts caution that the missile’s impact should not be overstated, with Trump’s threats more likely to see diplomatic overtures than game-changing military movements.
What is Tomahawk missile?
tomahawk missile A US-made long-range cruise missile that is usually launched from the sea to attack targets in deep strike missions.
First used in 1991 during persian gulf warMissiles have evolved significantly in the last 30 years. According to manufacturer Raytheon, the latest version, called the Block IV Tactical Tomahawk, or TACTOM, can change targets during flight, hover for hours and change course instantly on command.
Its most recent use occurred in 2024, when the US and UK navies launched Tomahawk missiles Houthi in rebel areas yemen,
What is the range of Tomahawk missile?
The precision-guided weapon can attack targets from up to 1,000 miles (1,600 km) away, even in heavily defended airspace. Measuring 20 feet (6.1 m) long with an 8.5-foot wingspan and weighing approximately 3,330 pounds (1,510 kg).
But it is not cheap. According to the Reuters news agency, the missiles cost an average of $1.3 million, making them a valuable – but expensive – military acquisition.
talking to IndependentDr Siddharth Kaushal, Senior Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), said the Tomahawk is guided to its target by a combination of digital visual mapping area correlation and GPS, giving it “comparatively higher survivability” and accuracy compared to other missiles, such as Ukrainian flamingo,
“In conjunction with the lower radar cross section, these characteristics make the Tomahawk a far greater lethal capability against targets located at strategic depth than the Flamingo, which is likely to be employable primarily against relatively soft targets associated with Russia’s hydrocarbon sector,” he explained.
But Dr Kaushal warned that the effectiveness of the Tomahawks “should not be exaggerated”.
He added, “Russia has spent decades optimizing its air defense network against threats such as subsonic cruise missiles and many of the systems it operates, including ground-based SAMs and interceptors such as the MiG-31BM, were created partly with a view to managing the risk posed by the Tomahawk.”
“As we have seen in the context of Russia’s attacks on Ukraine, missiles like the KH-101 and Kalibr can be intercepted in relatively large numbers by a dense air defense network compared to the Tomahawk.”
What will this mean for Russia?
Moscow has expressed “extreme concern” over the US potentially providing Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. Earlier, Putin himself had suggested that such a move would seriously damage relations between Moscow and Washington,
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev responded to the threat In a statement on Telegram, where he said that it is impossible to distinguish between Tomahawk missiles carrying nuclear warheads and conventional missiles after launch.
“How should Russia respond? Of course!” Medvedev said on Telegram on Monday, indicating that Moscow’s response would be nuclear.
Medvedev wrote: “One can only hope that this is another empty threat… like sending nuclear submarines closer to Russia.”
He was referring to Trump’s statement in August that he ordered two nuclear submarines to move closer to Russia in response to Medvedev’s “highly provocative” comments about the risk of war.
How might this affect the Ukraine-Russia war?
Experts have said the use of the missiles could force Russia to relocate air defense systems and reprioritize its assets. But he warned that despite Trump’s rhetoric, the use of missiles is unlikely to cause any major changes on the front lines.
“The Tomahawk’s ability to strike targets in depth could be militarily and economically disruptive, but ultimately will not fundamentally change the situation on the front line,” Dr Kaushal said. This is because there is a “limited number” of ground-based launchers for Tomahawk missiles and the US, which produces 50-70 per year and spends hundreds in the Middle East, would likely have to limit the number it provides to Ukraine.
But he warned that the Tomahawks’ impact on Russian strategy depends “largely” on what their targets are and how effective they are.
Dr Kaushal said that even major strategic setbacks in the past had failed to change Russia’s overall strategy.
“If the target is high-value military assets, the Russians will have to reconsider the allocation of air defense assets and, where possible, disperse or relocate some military capabilities, but the fundamental strategy remains unchanged,” he explained.
He said any attack on politically important targets such as Moscow could “intensify” Russia’s campaign in Ukraine – and potentially escalate its activities into NATO countries, as was recently seen in Poland.
“Further, if Russia views the use of the Tomahawk as a de facto U.S. attack because it believes the capability requires U.S. support for target development, it may take a more aggressive approach to its sub-range strikes in NATO territory,” he continued. “The pattern of sabotage, arson, damage to critical infrastructure and cyber attacks may increase in pace and risk acceptance as the Russians try to re-establish their red lines.”
How ‘risky’ is it for Trump to provide missiles?
The provision of missiles is risky for the US President, who has made no secret of his desire for good relations with Russia. Putin has made clear that he would consider any such move a major escalation against Trump’s ambitions.
After this, Trump’s efforts for peace talks with Putin came to a halt high risk summit In Alaska in August, the US president repeatedly encouraged Putin to end the war, but had little success. As a result, his relationship with Trump has soured recently Labeling Putin A “Paper Tiger”.
Dr Kaushal Any decision to send Tomahawks to Ukraine could in the short term “put an end to the tensions with Russia that Trump seemed to be pursuing”, but he said it was unlikely to fundamentally change relations between the two countries in the long term.
However, Dr Kaushal believes that this acquisition could change Moscow’s broader strategy diplomatically.
He said, “If Russia views Ukraine’s capture of Tomahawks not through the prism of war in Ukraine, but through the prism of the broader strategic balance, they may have a completely different significance because Russia will view them not as a small Ukrainian arsenal, but as a forward-deployed element of a much larger U.S. strike capability.”
“So, the bet seems to be that Russia’s tendency to view the capabilities of U.S. allies as an extension of the U.S. military, and its opposition to placing U.S. missiles in locations that enable attacks to be launched with minimal early warning, will act as an incentive to negotiate more seriously.”