Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Iran
    • Western Hemisphere
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
  • Analysis
    • Research
    • Q&A
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / Ukraine-Russia / U.S. Tomahawk refusal protects Ukraine from false hope
Ukraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

October 19, 2025

U.S. Tomahawk refusal protects Ukraine from false hope

By Jennifer Kavanagh

It was a big week for President Donald Trump’s attempts to end the war in Ukraine. After a two-hour call with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, Trump met in the White House with Ukraine’s leader, Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday. Pundits are already busy trying to assess who came out ahead. Did Putin’s outreach win Trump back to Russia’s side or does the American President continue to support Ukraine’s efforts to achieve a battlefield victory?

The answer, it seems, is none of the above. Instead, reality is the true winner of the latest diplomatic scramble, having successfully dealt a firm blow to the magical thinking afflicting all major stakeholders in the current war.

The wake-up call was harshest for Zelensky. The Ukrainian delegation came to Washington projecting confidence that President Trump would endorse their plan to go back on the offensive and provide Kyiv with long-range Tomahawk missiles that would allow Ukraine to strike deeper into Russian territory. Trump declined both requests. He said that he hoped the war could be ended without the use of Tomahawks, made no new commitments of military aid, and called on Zelensky to instead make a deal that would bring peace.

Trump’s position should have been expected. Despite all the talk about Tomahawks in Kyiv and in Washington, these missiles were never truly on the table for Ukraine. Not only does Kyiv have no way to launch the long-range missile, but U.S. stockpiles are so constrained that the Pentagon would surely object to giving any up. Trump’s rhetoric around Tomahawks resembled his earlier warnings about harsher sanctions on Russia—a threat that he does not want to make good on.

Read at UnHerd

Author

Jennifer
Kavanagh

Senior Fellow & Director of Military Analysis

Defense Priorities

More on Eurasia

op-edUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Ukraine and Russia are both suffering as the war enters its fifth year

By Daniel DePetris

February 10, 2026

op-edGrand strategy, Iran, U.S.‑Iran, Ukraine, Ukraine‑Russia

What happens when we give Europe first dibs on U.S. missiles for war

By Jennifer Kavanagh

February 9, 2026

op-edNuclear weapons, Europe and Eurasia, Russia

Welcome to a Global Nuclear Arms Dilemma

By Daniel DePetris

February 6, 2026

In the mediaNuclear weapons, Russia

Russia warns of response to any U.S. weapons deployment in Greenland

Featuring Jennifer Kavanagh

February 5, 2026

In the mediaRussia, Nuclear weapons

Expiry of nuclear weapons pact between U.S. and Russia risks new arms race

Featuring Jennifer Kavanagh

February 3, 2026

op-edRussia, Europe and Eurasia, Nuclear weapons

Salvaging a New START

By Jennifer Kavanagh

January 30, 2026

Events on Ukraine-Russia

See All Events
virtualUkraine‑Russia, Air power, Diplomacy, Drones, Europe and Eurasia, Land power, Military analysis, Russia, Ukraine

Ukraine’s critical choice: Pursue peace or fight on

April 16, 2025
virtualUkraine‑Russia, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine

Trump and Ukraine: Prolonging or ending the war

December 13, 2024
virtualNATO, Alliances, Europe and Eurasia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine‑Russia

A ‘bridge’ to NATO or false hope for Ukraine?

July 12, 2024

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • Research
  • Experts
  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2026 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved