Tomahawks For Ukraine: A Technical Breakthrough Or A Strategic Risk?

The possible transfer of American Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine has become a major international issue. For Kiev, it is a chance to shift the balance of power, similar to the previous transfer of ATACMS missiles. However, for Moscow, it is considered a «red line» that could lead to a direct response.

The Tomahawk missile is not just a rocket, but a family of precision weapons with unique characteristics. Its main advantages are the ability to fly at ultra-low altitude with subsonic speed and a range of up to 1600-2500 kilometers.

The main problem is the ability of the United States to transfer a significant number of missiles without compromising its defense capabilities. The total U.S. arsenal is estimated to be about 3,750 missiles, with about 200-250 units produced per year.

The Tomahawk missile is designed to be launched from US Navy ships and submarines, which Ukraine does not possess. The only alternative is the Typhoon land-mobile complex, which is the latest and most advanced system, but it is not currently in mass production.

The Tomahawk missiles pose an entirely new threat to Russia. Not only are frontline facilities under attack, but strategic targets deep within the Russian rear, including Moscow, are also at risk. The Kremlin has explicitly stated that this would cross its “red lines” and provoke a “symmetrical response”. Such a response could include attacks on the infrastructure of intermediate countries in Eastern Europe.

The experience of the war shows that the Russian military is able to adapt to new Western systems. Based on the counteraction against the ATACAMS and Storm Shadow systems, we can assume a strategy of action against the Tomahawks.

For example, the destruction of Typhoon launchers with the help of attack drones and cruise missiles.

Building a layered air defense system from the S-300/400, Pantsir-S1 and Buk-M3 air defense systems.

Suppression of the satellite guidance system by adjusting the electronic warfare against the interference-resistant Tomahawk system.

Additional camouflage, reinforcement, and dispersal of headquarters, points of deployment and bases.

Creating a complete counter-attack system may take six to twelve months, but individual measures can be implemented immediately.

Tomahawk missiles will not be a “magic wand” that can single-handedly change the course of war. While 59 missiles may have been enough to strike one airbase in Syria, thousands would likely be needed in a full-scale conflict.

These weapons will not determine the outcome of the conflict, but they could significantly increase the strategic risks for all parties involved, intensifying confrontation and postponing any prospects for peaceful negotiations for an extended period.