The New Escalation: How US Support for Ukraine’s Deep Strikes Could Redraw the Russia-West Fault Line

Ukraine has already inflicted over $74 billion in damage to Russia’s economy through persistent attacks on its energy infrastructure in 2025 alone. Now, a shift is underway that could dramatically amplify that pressure. According to a recent report from the Wall Street Journal, the United States is not only greenlighting intelligence sharing for long-range missile strikes within Russia, but also considering the delivery of Tomahawk cruise missiles – a move that fundamentally alters the calculus of the conflict and risks a dangerous escalation.

From Restraint to Risk: The Evolution of US Policy

For months, the US maintained a cautious approach, hesitant to directly enable attacks on Russian territory. This reluctance stemmed from fears of provoking a wider conflict with Russia. However, the failure of diplomatic efforts, coupled with Russia’s continued aggression and Ukraine’s demonstrated ability to strike strategic targets with drones – as seen in the “Cobweb” operation targeting Russian airbases – appears to have shifted Washington’s stance. The recent approval of intelligence support for deeper strikes, and the potential provision of Tomahawk missiles with a range of up to 2,500 kilometers, represents a significant departure from previous policy.

This isn’t simply about providing weapons; it’s about enabling a new level of precision and reach. As international analyst Francesco Tucci notes, this is less a “definitive change in strategy” and more a “pressure instrument” designed to cripple Russia’s war financing by targeting its energy infrastructure. Hydrocarbons remain the Kremlin’s primary revenue source, and systematic attacks on refineries and pipelines could severely limit its ability to sustain the war effort, even with diverted exports to China and India.

The Energy Weapon: Targeting Russia’s Lifeline

The focus on energy infrastructure is deliberate. Attacks on refineries, like the Lukoil facility in Volgograd – Russia’s largest in the south – have already caused fuel shortages and record-high gasoline prices within Russia, forcing the government to ban exports. This disruption isn’t just a logistical headache; it directly impacts Russia’s military capabilities, as transport relies heavily on refined fuels. The cumulative effect of these attacks is estimated to have already cost Russia approximately 4% of its GDP in 2025.

Did you know? Ukraine’s attacks on Russian refineries have been so effective that they’ve led to fuel rationing in Crimea, a region annexed by Russia in 2014.

Escalation Risks: What Could Russia Do?

Moscow’s response to this escalation is a major concern. While a direct attack on the United States remains unlikely, Putin has already warned that the use of Tomahawk missiles will “qualitatively new” stage in relations between the two countries. The most immediate impact will likely be felt by Ukraine, with analysts predicting an increase in mass bombings of Kyiv and attacks on its productive and logistical capacity. Russia may also target locations where Western weapons are stored.

Beyond Ukraine, increased Russian provocations in the Baltic states or along the Polish border are also a distinct possibility, raising tensions with NATO. This could manifest as increased military exercises, cyberattacks, or even hybrid warfare tactics designed to destabilize the region. The Council on Foreign Relations provides a detailed overview of the complex relationship between Russia and NATO.

The Tomahawk Factor: A Game Changer?

The potential delivery of Tomahawk missiles adds a new dimension to the conflict. While Ukraine has demonstrated ingenuity with drones, the Tomahawk offers greater range, precision, and payload capacity. Combined with US intelligence support, this could significantly enhance Ukraine’s ability to target critical infrastructure and disrupt Russia’s war machine. However, it also increases the risk of miscalculation and escalation, as Russia may perceive these attacks as a more direct threat.

The Trump Variable: A Policy in Flux?

The fact that this shift in policy occurred under the Trump administration is particularly noteworthy. Trump’s previous rhetoric towards Russia, including his meeting with Putin in Alaska, suggested a willingness to seek accommodation. However, his recent statements expressing confidence in Ukraine’s ability to “win all Ukraine to its original form” – coupled with the approval of intelligence sharing – indicate a hardening of his stance.

However, as Tucci points out, Trump’s decisions are often unpredictable. A sudden shift in his approach, perhaps in response to a diplomatic overture from Moscow, could quickly reverse course. This inherent uncertainty adds another layer of complexity to the situation.

Frequently Asked Questions

The coming months will be critical in determining whether this escalation leads to a decisive shift in the conflict or a dangerous spiral of escalation. The US is walking a tightrope, attempting to weaken Russia without triggering a wider war. The outcome will have profound implications for the future of Europe and the global balance of power. What are your predictions for the future of this conflict? Share your thoughts in the comments below!