The debate over providing Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine has become one of the most contentious issues in the ongoing war with Russia. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has lobbied the Trump administration for delivery of Tomahawks that could enable Ukraine to strike targets deep inside Russia, while Russian government spokesperson Dmitry Peskov suggested the weapons could be crossing a red line over what Moscow sees as direct interference by Ukraine's allies.

What makes Tomahawks so special
The Tomahawk remains effective and relatively cheap at 2 million US dollars per missile, with variants that can strike targets at ranges between 1,600 and 2,500 kilometers. To put this in perspective, that's roughly the distance from Ukraine's border to Moscow and far beyond.

The missile has sophisticated guidance technologies and travels at high subsonic speeds (about 550 mph), flying low and literally hugging the contours of land, making it harder to detect and intercept. This terrain-following capability is crucial. It means Russian air defenses would have much less time to react compared to higher-flying missiles.

Why Ukraine wants them
1. Extended Reach: Ukraine's current Western-supplied missiles like Storm Shadow have ranges of only around 250 kilometers. Tomahawks would allow strikes five to ten times farther into Russian territory.

2. Hit the Source: Ukrainian officials argue they could target airbases from which Russia launches mass missile attacks against Ukrainian cities, as Moscow has kept its air fleet out of range of weapons Kyiv currently possesses.

3. Strategic Targets: According to the Washington-based think tank the Institute for the Study of War, dozens of Tomahawks could enable the Ukrainian military to inflict substantial damage on key Russian infrastructure, including the Shahed drone factory in Tatarstan and the Engels-2 Air Base in Saratov oblast.

4. Psychological Pressure: Zelensky has said Tomahawks would "strengthen Ukraine and force the Russians to sober up a little and sit down at the negotiating table". Even without using them extensively, their mere presence could serve as leverage.

5. Balance of Power: Currently, Russia freely launches cruise missiles at Ukrainian cities from safe distances. Tomahawks would create a similar threat in reverse.

Why Russia fears them
1. Vulnerable Territory: Moscow, St. Petersburg, and critical military installations would suddenly be within range. Russia's most populous and politically important cities and a host of important air, naval, oil refining and drone production facilities would be within range.

2. Nuclear Ambiguity: The Kremlin was particularly perturbed because Tomahawks can carry nuclear warheads, with Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service head warning their supply would threaten global security. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev noted it's impossible to distinguish between Tomahawk missiles carrying nuclear warheads and conventional ones after launch.

3. Escalation Concerns: Russia views this as NATO directly entering the conflict through advanced weaponry, not just supporting Ukraine with defensive equipment.

4. Domestic Impact: Strikes on Russian soil have already affected public morale. More powerful, accurate weapons hitting deeper targets could undermine support for the war.

5. Strategic Vulnerability: Russia would need to spread its air defenses across a vastly larger area, weakening protection at the front lines.

The reality check
Despite the attention, several significant barriers make Tomahawk delivery uncertain:

Limited Supply: President Trump said "we have to remember one thing; we need them for ourselves too. We can't give all of our weapons to Ukraine". The rate of Tomahawk production has ranged from 55 to 90 annually in recent years, with the Pentagon planning to purchase just 57 missiles in 2026.

Launch Platform Problem: The main launch platforms for Tomahawks are naval vessels, most commonly submarines, and bomber aircraft, neither of which Ukraine possesses. Ukraine would need a ground-launcher called the Typhon to fire the missile, and these systems are extremely limited.

Training and Integration: Ukraine currently does not possess the specialized launch equipment or the trained personnel needed to field the Tomahawk missile system, according to humanitarian organization officials.

Numbers Matter: Hundreds of Tomahawks would be needed to cripple Russia's refineries and airbases. A handful wouldn't fundamentally change the war's trajectory.

Will this actually matter
Here's the uncomfortable truth: probably not as much as headlines suggest.

As seen with F-16 fighter jets, Abrams tanks and Patriot missile batteries supplied to Ukraine, no single system is a game-changer. The war has proven resistant to silver-bullet solutions.

Marina Miron, an analyst at King's College London, argued that while Tomahawks would undoubtedly hurt Russia, the damage would be limited, stating "Is it going to force Russia to withdraw from Ukraine? I doubt it".

Russian spokesperson Peskov dismissed concerns, saying "Even if this happens, there is no panacea that can now change the situation on the front lines for the Kyiv regime, there is no magic weapon, be it Tomahawks or missiles - they will not be able to change the dynamics".

The fundamental issues in this war, manpower, artillery ammunition, defensive fortifications, and political will, wouldn't be resolved by long-range missiles. Recent months have seen Russia launch between 100 and 200 missiles of all types into Ukraine each month. Even if Ukraine received Tomahawks, the numbers would likely be too small to match this scale.

Moreover, the months-long debate over providing them has already given Russia time to prepare defenses and disperse critical assets. The element of surprise is largely gone.

The most realistic scenario? If delivered at all, Tomahawks would be a valuable addition to Ukraine's arsenal for select high-value targets, but they won't be the decisive weapon that ends the war. Victory or defeat will ultimately be decided by the grinding realities of industrial capacity, troop numbers, and political endurance, not by any single weapons system, no matter how sophisticated.