Posted on 10/12/2025 4:47:18 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Moscow has warned of the risk of escalation if Kyiv is provided with the US-built long-range missiles.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said his country would only use long-range Tomahawk missiles against Russian military targets, as the Kremlin expressed alarm over Washington’s potential plan to offer the weapons to Kyiv.
Zelenskyy’s comment was aired by Fox News in the United States on Sunday, the same day he spoke to US President Donald Trump.
Recommended Stories
Writing on X, the Ukrainian president called his latest conversation with Trump “very productive”, noting that they had discussed strengthening his country’s “air defence, resilience, and long-range capabilities”. It was the second time the pair had spoken in as many days.
On Monday, Trump said he would only agree to Tomahawks to Ukraine if he knew what it planned to do with them. He also noted, without giving further details, that he had “sort of made a decision” over the issue.
Given that their range is 2,500km (1,550 miles), Ukraine could use the weapons to strike deep inside Russia.
Speaking en route to Israel on Sunday afternoon, Trump gave further comments on the Tomahawks, saying he may tell Russian President Vladimir Putin that he could give them to Ukraine if the war is not brought to an end soon.
“They’d like to have Tomahawks. That’s a step up,” Trump said, referring to the Ukrainians.
“The Tomahawk is an incredible weapon; very offensive weapon. And honestly, Russia does not need that,” Trump added.
In comments published earlier on Sunday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said the topic was of “extreme concern” to Russia.
“Now is really a very dramatic moment in terms of...
(Excerpt) Read more at aljazeera.com ...
Game changer is a word for word quote. Whose exaggeration would that be, then.
They were not described as game changers, but as something that could be.
“”F-16s Are No Magic Bullet for Ukraine, but They Are a Game Changer with the Right Munitions””
Besides, I asked you several times to define game changer as you so sweepingly used it in post 9.
“If your definition of “game changer” is like that title and article then fine, it doesn’t mean ‘the Magic Bullet’ or ‘the end of the war’ or ‘victory for Ukraine’”
dood there are zillions of articles declaring them game changers. They obviously were not. Here are some more:
https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/himars-ukraines-original-game-changer-1613
I have no obligation to define game changer. The originators of the term have that obligation. I just quoted them, word for word, which precludes exaggeration.
I think you’re aware of all of this and are dodging.
Well, I guess you now want to pretend you didn’t mean much by calling everything game changer, tomahawks are on your list along with the completely normal fact that nations would supply peacekeepers if a ceasefire is signed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.