Distances in modern wars are nuclear issues. In Ukraine it was very clear in November 2024, when the world held thinking that Putin finally had “tightened” the button. So, A few kilometers They were key for the Moscow missile not to activate all red lines. That is why also, since the invasion of 2022, a name that kyiv has just invoked as one of the greatest orders to Russia has rarely jumped to the fore.
Tomahawks in Ukraine. USA Study seriously The request of the Ukrainian President Zelenski to incorporate cruise missiles Tomahawk To his arsenal, a step that would be an unprecedented escalation in the war. These missiles, with a range of between 1,500 and 2,500 kilometers according to the versions, would be able to reach Moscow and much of the Russian territory from Ukrainian soil, which would represent a qualitative change with respect to the current kyiv capacities, based mainly on long -range drones and the limited ones Atacms missiles previously authorized by Washington.
The possibility of its delivery reflects the turn of the Donald Trump administration, which until recently was reluctant to extend the conflict, but now transmits a more belligerent speech: for its special envoy Keith Kellogg “There are no sanctuaries” and Ukraine should be able to hit Russia deeply to alter the dynamics of war.
The Russian answer. From Moscow, the statements were received with an alarm and challenge mixture. Spokesman Dmitri Peskov recognized that the Kremlin was carrying out an “in -depth analysis” about the implications of an eventual supply of Tomahawks, raising questions about who would control its launch and the selection of objectives: if exclusively the Ukrainians or if there were American personnel involved, which would bring the scenario closer to a direct confrontation between powers.
Besides, warned thateven if these missiles will be delivered, “there is no panacea” capable of rooting the situation on the front, where Russia claims to be constantly moving forward. The implicit message is that, even before a technological leap, Moscow would maintain the military initiative and not give in western blackmail.
Reprisals and a shadow. The Russian political class went further in their warnings. The president of the Parliament Defense Committee, Andrei Kartapolov, said that any US military specialist who participated in operations with Tomahawks would become reprisal objective direct, “and no one can protect them, neither Trump nor Kellogg nor anyone else.”
Similarly, Putin He has repeated On previous occasions that Russia reserves The right to attack military facilities in third European countries if attacks against their territory are facilitated. The threat is not less: it would make NATO base white, with an obvious risk of climbing towards a direct conflict of greater size. Even Dmitri Medvedev, in his usual tone, He warned that Europe “It cannot afford a war with Russia”, but that “the risk of a fatal accident always exists”, in reference to the possible trigger for a greater confrontation from an error of calculation or a crossing of red lines.
Tomahawk
Change of American course. No doubt, the reconsideration of the supply of Tomahawks to Ukraine symbolizes a Turn in the strategy United States. During the presidency of Biden, Washington was extremely cautious, Limiting to reluctant The use of Atacms within the Russian territory and fearing to trigger an uncontrolled escalation.
Under Trump, however, the speech has mutated: he starts talking about Ukraine as Able to win the warRussia is qualified as “paper tiger” and Multiply the pressure For European allies to also contribute with long -range missiles, such as German bullfighting. Former Lithuanian Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis He stressed That these weapons would not only give Ukraine greater control, but also allow “marking the tone” of the climb, instead of letting it be Moscow who unilaterally decides the depth of the attacks.
Atacms
Military Comparison: Atacms. The debate on which long -range missiles should receive Ukraine is not only political, but deeply technical and strategicbecause each system offers different possibilities on the battlefield. In front of Tomahawk, the Atacms, already used by Ukraine, is a tactical ballistic missile launched since Himars systems either M270. Its most widespread versions can reach 300 km.
HE They use above all to hit deposits of ammunition, aerodromes and troops concentrations behind the immediate lines of the front. Its impact has been remarkable by forcing Russia to displace its more logistics centers within, but its limited scope leaves most of the Russian strategic rear. For Moscow, the difference with a Tomahawk is abysmal: while the Atacms forces to retreat a few hundred kilometers, a Tomahawk would put all its military and political apparatus at risk.
Taurus Kepd 350
Military comparative: Taurus Kepd 350. He Taurusjointly developed by Germany and Sweden, it is an aerial cruise missile launched from combat planes such as The Tornado or the Eurofighter. Its estimated scope is 500 km, with a penetration eyelet designed to destroy bunkers, landing clues and strongly protected objectives.
His ultrabajo flight profile and his capacity for electronic evasion make it especially difficult to intercept. Ukraine has been claiming these missiles for some time, although Berlin He has shown reluctance for the risk of being used to attack on Russian soil. In case of reaching Kiev, they would give the Ukrainian Air Force the ability to attack with great precision key military facilities such as aerodromes, barracks or weapons deposits in areas that until now remained out of reach.
Strategic implications. The essential difference is In the scope: Atacms offer a tactical radius limited to the immediate area of the front, the Taurus would allow to hit deeply in the Russian operational rear, and the Tomahawk would open the possibility of strategic attacks to the entire interior of the country, including its large urban and military centers.
This reach staircase translates into different levels of climbing: while the attacks are perceived as a weapon of containment and wear, the Taurus already touch the capacity for operational denial and the Tomahawk cross directly to the field of strategic deterrence, with global security implications.
Between deterrence and catastrophe. The background of the debate lies in a delicate balance: the need to provide a weapons that can break the Russian blockade against fear of An uncontrolled climb that drag NATO to a direct conflict with Moscow. For kyiv, Tomahawk would be A strategic leapcapable of hitting command centers, critical infrastructure and deposits hundreds of kilometers from the front, weakening the Russian logistics capacity.
For Moscow, however, they represent A diffuse red line whose overcoming would justify reprisals against those who supply them or operate them. Between both visions, a growing terrain is extended, one where any movement can trigger much broader consequences than those planned, making the delivery of missiles not only a technical issue, but a critical test of how far the West is willing to arrive in the defense of Ukraine.
Image | Usndo-Pacific Commandaxesofavil2000, Kelly Michals
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings