Moscow: In one of his strongest warnings in recent months, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that any decision by the United States to supply Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine would spell the end of what remains of U.S.–Russia relations. Speaking in a video address published by state-run media, Putin cautioned that such an act would trigger a “new qualitative stage of confrontation” and leave Moscow with no choice but to respond decisively.
The warning comes amid reports that Washington is actively debating whether to provide Ukraine with advanced long-range weaponry to help it repel Russian forces and strike deeper into occupied territories. According to Putin, the delivery of Tomahawk missiles with a range of nearly 2,500 kilometers would effectively bring Russian cities, including Moscow, within striking distance. He stressed that Russia could not ignore such a threat and would be compelled to fortify its defense systems and adopt corresponding countermeasures.
Putin accused the United States of edging dangerously close to direct involvement in the conflict, asserting that “the use of such systems without the participation of American specialists is impossible.” His remarks implied that, in Moscow’s view, supplying Tomahawks would cross a red line, blurring the distinction between support for Ukraine and direct participation in the war. “If the United States dares to take such a step, it would destroy the remaining framework of our relations,” he said, warning of “serious consequences for global stability.”
The Tomahawk cruise missile, developed by the United States Navy, is a precision-guided weapon capable of flying low and striking distant targets with high accuracy. Its inclusion in Ukraine’s arsenal would drastically enhance Kyiv’s ability to target critical Russian military infrastructure far behind the front lines. However, such a move would also heighten the risk of direct confrontation between Moscow and Washington a scenario both nations have so far sought to avoid.
Putin’s comments reflect Russia’s growing unease over Western discussions about expanding military aid to Kyiv. The U.S. has already supplied advanced systems such as HIMARS rocket launchers, Patriot air defenses, and long-range ATACMS missiles. Yet, the introduction of Tomahawks would mark a new escalation in both technological sophistication and range, potentially transforming Ukraine’s military capabilities.
In Washington, Vice President J.D. Vance recently confirmed that the administration is considering Ukraine’s request for long-range systems, though no final decision has been made. Defense analysts note that U.S. Navy inventories of Tomahawks are largely committed to strategic operations, making any transfer complex and politically sensitive. Still, growing pressure from Kyiv and European allies has revived the debate over the scope of American support.
For Moscow, however, even the discussion of such a transfer is unacceptable. The Kremlin views it as proof that Washington’s real aim is not just to support Ukraine’s defense, but to weaken Russia strategically. Putin insisted that Russia would “neutralize any such missiles” and reinforce its air defense shield to protect vital infrastructure. He further hinted that retaliatory measures diplomatic, military, or otherwise would follow if Washington proceeds.
The warning underscores the fragile state of U.S.–Russia relations, which have deteriorated to Cold War-era lows since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Diplomatic contact remains minimal, arms-control talks are stalled, and mutual suspicion dominates. Analysts believe Putin’s statement is both a deterrent signal and a message to domestic audiences, projecting defiance against Western pressure.
As the war grinds into its fourth year, the debate over supplying Tomahawk missiles adds a new layer of complexity to global security. For Ukraine, it represents a potential game-changer on the battlefield. For the United States, it poses a strategic dilemma how far to go in aiding Kyiv without triggering a direct clash with Russia. For Moscow, it is a test of endurance, diplomacy, and deterrence one that could determine the course of U.S.–Russia relations for years to come.