Frustration with Putin’s stalling could mean Trump gives green light for Zelensky to use 1,500-mile cruise weapon

The Tomahawk cruise missile boasts a 1,500-mile range and pinpoint accuracy Credit: Reuters

Joe Barnes Brussels Correspondent

02 October 2025 6:00am BST

When an American submarine unleashed 30 Tomahawks on Iranian nuclear facilities, Donald Trump hailed their pinpoint accuracy and destructive power.

Each of the cruise missiles had “hit within a foot of where they were supposed to hit”, the US president boasted.

His claims were backed up by satellite images, which showed the scorched earth of where at least 16 buildings once stood at the Isfahan nuclear facility.

Having witnessed the missile’s effectiveness, Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, renewed his calls for donations of Tomahawks.

He made the audacious request while meeting Mr Trump on the fringes of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, a detail of their private discussion first reported by The Telegraph.

Unlike previous attempts by Mr Zelensky to secure Tomahawks for his armed forces, which were rebuffed by Joe Biden’s administration, a breakthrough appears to have been made.

Shortly after The Telegraph broke the news, JD Vance, the vice-president, went on the record to discuss shipments of Tomahawks.

“We’re certainly looking at a number of requests from the Europeans,” he told Fox News, when asked about the topic.

The idea, if sanctioned by Mr Trump, would see European governments pay for shipments of Tomahawks to Ukraine through a Nato-led scheme.

Keith Kellogg, the US president’s Ukraine envoy, went further to declare that Kyiv would be permitted to conduct long-range strikes inside Russia.

“I think reading what he [Trump] has said, and reading what Vice-President Vance has said… the answer is yes. Use the ability to hit deep. There are no such things as sanctuaries,” the former general also told Fox.

Acquiring Tomahawks would put Moscow comfortably within the range of Kyiv’s arsenal.

The subsonic cruise missile, which can be launched from aircraft, submarines, warships or the ground, has a range of 2,500km (1,550 miles), depending on the model.

Travelling at speeds of around 550mph, Tomahawks fly at low altitude to dodge enemy radar and use onboard sensors to avoid obstacles in order to find their designated targets.

Their 450kg warhead is designed to penetrate and destroy hardened targets, such as fortified bunkers.

Ukraine would likely use the powerful weapon to destroy a series of different targets at Russia’s rear to disrupt assaults on the front lines.

Command hubs, ammunition depots and military production sites manufacturing missiles and drones would all be on a list of possible strike zones.

In theory, this will slow Russia’s offensive tempo by making it harder to resupply the front line and disrupting its command structures.

Mr Zelensky even suggested Russian politicians would have to learn where their nearest bomb shelters are should Kyiv acquire a weapon capable of reaching Moscow, in an interview with the Axios news website.

The Kremlin and some of Vladimir Putin’s biggest cheerleaders are already screaming “escalation”.

Much like earlier deliveries of other much-vaunted weapons systems, Moscow has argued Tomahawk shipments would be crossing a red line over what is deemed as a direct interference in its war against Ukraine.

“The question, as before, is this: who can launch these missiles… Can only Ukrainians launch them, or do American soldiers have to do that?” mused Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s spokesman.

“Who is determining the targeting of these missiles? The American side or the Ukrainians themselves?”

Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s sabre-rattling former president, warned further US interference could result in a war with “weapons of mass destruction”.

Similar warnings of escalation came as Ukraine’s allies delivered weapons such as Himars rocket launchers, modern battle tanks, Storm Shadow and Atacms missiles.

“All the Russian hysterics promising escalation has tapped into Russia’s previous campaign of instilling a mortal fear of the word escalation in the previous US administration,” Keir Giles, senior consulting fellow at Chatham House, said.

“Russia does this because it works.”

While weapons have eventually made their way from US stockpiles to Kyiv, decisions have been slow, and often too late to make a difference because of fears over escalation in the White House.

Mr Trump has previously expressed fears that Ukrainian strikes inside Russia, using US weapons and intelligence, could lead to a nuclear war.

A U-turn now seems plausible because of his growing frustrations with Putin’s refusal to engage with his efforts to broker a peace deal after three and a half years of conflict.

One of the justifications used by Mr Zelensky when requesting Tomahawks during his meeting with Mr Trump was that a positive decision would force Putin to the negotiating table.

But for Mr Giles the addition of the missile to Kyiv’s arsenal would not likely phase the Russian president.

“Putin thinks he’s winning, and the only thing that will change that calculus is damage done to Russia that is sufficiently devastating that it actually poses a threat to his grip on power in Russia,” the analyst said.

“Anything short of that is just part of waging the war, and the capability for Ukraine to do this is long overdue.”

Would the weapon in Ukraine’s hands become a war-ending silver bullet?

Dr Sidharth Kaushal, of the Rusi think tank, said: “While the Tomahawk is an expensive missile, the real issue as far as material goes is not price but production. The US produces 50 to 70 of the missiles a year and has expended hundreds in the Middle East.”

The analyst suggested that because of the risk of war over a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan “parting with enough cruise missiles to make a meaningful impact would be difficult”.

America would also have an effective veto over any strike carried out by Ukraine because of the requirements for route mapping and mission files.

“The latter, in particular, will require direct US participation which would be a major step if the Tomahawk is used against targets deep within Russia,” Dr Sidharth added.

When the first British, air-launched cruise missiles arrived in Ukraine in 2023, Kyiv unlocked a whole series of new targets.

Spectacular attacks on warships, bridges and ammunition dumps followed, as did panic from pro-Russian war bloggers on social media.

But much like the introduction of any new hi-tech weapon, the systems slowly become less effective as Ukrainian stockpiles dwindle and Russia adapts its tactics.

Moscow’s forces soon realised that if they moved the targets out of the range of the new weapons, further back from the front lines, they would once again enjoy relative safety.

This, of course, slowed Russia’ s war, but did allow it to continue at a grinding pace.

Even if Ukraine were only to be given the version of Tomahawks with 1,500km (930-mile) range, this could delay deliveries to forward positions by days.

One thing it will not do is force Russia to withdraw from Ukraine.

Dr Sidharth concluded: “As such my best assessment is that the threat is a negotiating gambit rather than a realistic proposal, though of course events could prove me wrong.”