Zelenskyy promises to only use Tomahawks against Russian military targets

al Jazeera ^ | 12 Oct 2025 | News Agencies

[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

• Zelenskyy urges Trump to broker end to Ukraine war after Gaza deal agreed
• Russia-Ukraine war: List of key events, day 1,326
• UK, US, NATO flew 12-hour patrol on Russian border amid Ukraine war

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...

[ansel12]

By who and what does “game changer” means?

[Karl Spooner]

If Ukraine gets the tomahawks it will be the US that does the targeting, programing and the launching of them. We won’t be able to hide behind Ukrainian dead bodies on this one.

[nathanbedford]

The kilometer long lines for petrol are not AI induced. The rationing of gasoline is a fact. Increased cost of fuel is apparent from the prices stated on signs.

As I understand it, official Russian reports for the first time admitted an actual strike on a facility, theretofore they had always maintained that it was remnants of shot down drones that had impacted. Obviously, Russian sources are to be discounted entirely. Videos of struck facilities are censored but many of them go viral nevertheless.

The sources for the 20% of capacity are not Pro Ukraine propaganda sources.

The impact of the energy strikes, together with the sanctions, on the economy are difficult to determine. The extent of weakness/vulnerability of the economy are equally difficult to measure. But the long lines are evidence that the damage is more extensive than your data suggests, or the repairs are not nearly as effective and prompt.

Whatever the whole picture, it is clear that the Ukrainians have been remarkably successful in striking deeply into Russia at critical facilities with resulting disruptions.

[Bob Wills is still the king]

I’d still like to see Z put one in Putin’s Black Sea vacation “daca” palace.

[Owen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxXbzN-vjeA

This should be helpful.

By the way the original 17% number that floated around for several weeks derived from a single Reuters article that was on sourced and did not prevent the calculation methodology. But the video above should clarify things.

[ansel12]

Seriously, who was labeling such bits and pieces “game changers” and what is that supposed to mean, you make it sound like it means that each adjustment or small package of old equipment was claimed that it would end the war by the experts and donors, rather than merely reporting of some new material being sent to Ukraine or a new sanction imposed.

[ansel12]

That propaganda video has the American president being wrong on foreign policy regarding the war and Russia because he gets all his impressions and misperceptions from surfing Youtube videos, and therefore president Trump’s knowledge and reactions and proposals for NATO responses are all wrong, that Trump is just a Youtube watching simpleton that has no access to the facts and reality, like this Youtube guy does.

[Owen]

Trump is trying to influence direction. If he knew he was saying incorrect things, he would still say them because it might push Russia.

Does he get bad info? Probably not. His goal is to collect money from Europe in return for weapons for which he will demand overprice. Europe won’t pay that if they are told it is hopeless. So he won’t tell them it is hopeless.

[Owen]

You should be able to do a search on Ukraine, F-16 and game-changer.

[mad_as_he$$]

It not just pipes. The control devices get fried with miles of wiring.

In general I agree with your premise. Makes a big show but little damage.

[ansel12]

What some clickbait titles somewhere on the internet?

What does game changer even mean, you make it sound like it means that each adjustment or small package of old equipment was claimed that it would end the war by the experts and donors, rather than merely reporting of some new material being sent to Ukraine or a new sanction imposed.

As far as your Youtube source, why post his propaganda and insults against the American president if you disagree with his claim of Trump as a Youtube fool?

[Owen]

When those weapons were splashed, they were presented as game changers. The bone breaking sanctions were not from clickbait links. That came from Graham.

The individual items were presented as decisive. You can find out the many places where — probably linking to each other.

Here ya go, Rand Corp chasing clicks?
https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/10/f-16s-are-no-magic-bullet-for-ukraine-but-they-are.html

[Owen]

As for the young man with his youtube video that displays petrol stations with no queues . . . you can certainly examine the pixels to see if they were edited.

[ansel12]

“”””””F-16s Are No Magic Bullet for Ukraine, but They Are a Game Changer with the Right Munitions””””””

The individual donations and cast offs were usually seen as helpful.
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’, as your article points out, with the right situations and munitions, the F-16s could help and affect the situation, which is just common sense and reality.

[Owen]

It is what I said. When the event was splashed, it was as a game changer.

Do your own searches. M1 Abrams Ukraine game changer. For the items I listed.

None were. None will be unless the Brits use nuclear weapons off their submarines. That will certainly change the game.

[ansel12]

What were all those various little donated, mostly discards, supposed to do, as it is, every little bit helps the side that America supports and hurts our adversaries Russia and North Korea.

As you linked to, none of them was a poison pill, or a war ender which you seem to try and give the impression they were reported as, but every little bit has contributed to this being almost 4 years later and Ukraine still exists, and still owns Odessa, it all has helped.

[Owen]

They were presented as game changers. That’s the subject of the moment. Were they or were they not presented thus? Answer yes. They were, as I have proven and as you can further prove via search.

It’s not complex. If they did not change the game, then they were not game changers.

[ansel12]

They were not covered in your exaggerated manner and the internet is a big place, even the article title you chose didn’t label them as game changers, it merely mentioned the possibilities of their effect if certain armaments were available and they were used in a certain manner.

As far as making a difference, or altering the battlefield, as year 4 of the quick invasion approaches and Ukraine still exists with access to the Black sea, every little thing we and our allies have sent has contributed to our side’s holding off Russian and North Korean forces, I think most people agree that would not be the situation without all those actions and the assistance, they were positives for the American side in this war against Russia and North Korea.

You tend to exaggeration and were trying to give the impression every little thing given was given as a war winning new super weapon, or a final conclusive sanction.

It is exaggeration in support of the enemy’s propaganda against the side we support.

[Paul R.]

To support your point, I would add that:

The larger Ukie drones carry more than “a few pounds of explosives”. That statement alone discredits our Russian operative’s credence.

In many cases, the products at / in the refineries themselves provide most of the destructive energy needed. Some of the secondary explosions seen on the vids have been duly impressive.

I would note here that in some cases, the refinery fire(s) burned for days before being put out. Methinks that “simply turning off a valve” did not quite cut it.

Refineries contain equipment far more difficult and time consuming to repair than a few pipes! Distillation towers head the list, and are a fab, juicy target. It would be fair to say that time offline has varied greatly.

“Band-Aid” repairs of refinery equipment tend to be quite dangerous, all by themselves.

Most of Russia’s refineries are within range.

Our comrade here just a few days ago pointed out Russia’s large “export margin”, and yet, as you point out, shortages, rationing, and the long lines @ gas stations are already showing up.

Transport capacity from refineries far in Russia’s East to Russia’s West gets “interesting”. Transport as it moves west becomes increasingly vulnerable to attack, of course.

Up till now, those Eastern refineries have been contributing substantially to Russia’s export market. Russia’s export customers will not be pleased to lose supply. OTOH, how will the Russian populace feel about export customers being put ahead of “the people”?

It IS fair to account for repairs, and that degree of damage is often uncertain or unknown. OTOH, it is also “fair” to note that storage and transport is also being hit, and even if Russian AD was competent beyond shooting down passenger airliners, drones are getting increasingly smarter and stealthier: Russia cannot possibly cover so many targets over such a large area, when drones are so relatively plentiful and cheap. Moreover, if Trump were to hand over some 30+ year old loitering HARM tech (or Ukraine was to re-invent it, which looks likely eventually, anyway), carried via drones, Russian AD could well suffer the same fate as Iran’s, delivered a bit differently.

I don’t see any sign at all that Ukraine’s trendline now (of their attacks on Russian refined products capacity) is going to do anything but continue to increase. I don’t expect Tomahawks to be significant, because very few land based launchers exist, but Taurus could become a factor, and ERAMS are already being delivered to hit medium range logistics. An attacking army with blasted logistics is soon a dead army.

Russia will of course continue to pound the Ukies’ energy supply, but, the Ukies have in 3+ years developed a much more diverse supply / backup supply (generators, small transport trucks, etc.) whose origins (depots, if you will) are in neighboring NATO countries, so Putin dares not hit them there. Once in Ukraine, you are literally talking about millions of small targets, mostly in civilian areas. Even if Russia had the means to take them out, the carnage would lose Russia many supporters. It would make Gaza look like a picnic. (Most structures the Israelis hit got warnings they would be hit. Warning the Ukies would be useless - most of the generators, etc., would move with them.) The Ukies’ “solution” for backup power is very inefficient, of course, but, the Euro’s (primarily) are paying for it.

The “truth” of the situation for Russia, at present, is surely somewhere between the story presented by most Western media, and our comrade’s arm-waving. However, it appears certain that “truth” will continue to get worse for Russia, in ways they will have a very hard time countering @ home.

[Paul R.]

What else would you expect from a Russian operative?

(I’m not actually criticizing YOU.) :-)

You may find my post above interesting. More interesting (I should check) would be to see if YT’er “Perun” has posted anything about Russia’s refined products situation, recently. He tends to analyze things quite objectively, IMO.