Ukraine’s Leadership Arrives in Washington Amid Uncertain Fate of U.S. Missile Deliveries

In a congratulatory phone call from Zelensky to Trump on Saturday, Ukrainian officials said the two leaders talked about Russia’s latest strikes targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, as well as the possibility of Kyiv obtaining U.S. made Tomahawk missiles. In a post on XZelensky said “If a war can be stopped in one region, then surely other wars can be stopped as well – including the Russian war”.

The missile request is the latest in a long-running series of high-profile requests by Ukrainian officials for more powerful and sophisticated western support.

President Trump says he has “sort of made a decision” about giving Tomahawks to NATO for supply to Ukraine, but says he wants to know Ukrainian plans for them before sending them.

Moscow is pushing back against the possibility of providing U.S. Tomahawks to Ukraine, which could provide the capability for even deeper strikes inside Russia, something that wouldn’t play well for the Russian President at home.

President Vladimir Putin said recently that sending Tomahawks to Ukraine would significantly damage U.S.-Russia relations, and that the weapons would “mean a completely new, qualitatively new stage of escalation, including in relations between Russia and the United States”.

Ukraine has already shown impressive tenacity in striking targets on Russian soil. Kyiv’s domestic drone campaign against Russian oil and gas facilities, aimed at cutting Russia’s energy export revenues that fund its war machine, has been remarkably successful. Moscow has publicly acknowledged that it is facing domestic fuel shortages, but has not publicly attributed the Ukrainian strikes as the cause. In June, Ukraine smuggled over 100 drones into Russia and launched Operation Spider Weba drone attack that resulted in the loss of a third of Moscow’s fleet of strategic bomber aircraft.

And, Ukraine has already successfully employed advanced western supplied missiles like the US-made Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) and the European-made Storm Shadow. The ATACM has a range of around 300 KM, while the Storm Shadow has a range of 250KM. Kyiv is also producing and testing its own long-range missile, the FP-5 Flamingo that has a stated range of 3000KM. Recent media reports indicate that Kyiv may have started using the Flamingo in an operational capacity, but details on the operations remain scarce.

^{An infographic titled “Range of ATACMS missiles” created in Ankara, Turkiye on November 19, 2024. (Photo by Murat Usubali/Anadolu via Getty Images)}

The Tomahawk would be a significant improvement in long-range strike capability for Ukraine’s military. The missiles, capable of being launched from ships, submarines and ground launchers, have a range of 1,500-2,000KM, and are capable of hitting targets accurately even in heavily defended airspace. The Tomahawk would give Ukraine the ability to hit most of European Russia, west of the Ural Mountains. That puts key political and military hubs like Moscow and St. Petersburg in range, as well as significant military assets and energy infrastructure.

_{A Tomahawk cruise missile flies toward Iraq after being launched from the AEGIS guided missile cruiser USS San Jacinto March 25, 2003 in the Red Sea. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)}

CONTEXT

• President Trump says he “sort” of has made a decision on supplying Ukraine with Tomahawks
• Foreign Minister of Estonia told Trump that Tomahawks could help Ukraine “push Russia back”
• The Tomahawk missile is made by Raytheon and has a range of 1,500-2,000kms (around 930-1,550 miles)
• It is approximately 750 Kilometers from Kyiv to Moscow

• Tomahawks are primarily launched from maritime platforms and are currently deployed on all U.S. ships and submarines equipped with vertical launch systems (VLSs).

• Ground-launched Tomahawks are launched from the Typhon, a new vertical launch system developed by Lockheed Martin to enable the U.S. military to launch Tomahawks from the ground. This system would likely be required by Ukraine.

• Since the 1990s, the U.S. Navy has purchased about 9,000 Tomahawk units at an average price of $1.3 million each. It is unclear where the U.S. stockpile stands currently. U.S. allies armed with Tomahawks include the Netherlands, Australia, the UK, and Japan.

We spoke with two Cipher Brief Experts to get their take on these questions:

Rear Adm. (Ret.) Mark Montgomery

Rear Adm. (Ret.) Mark Montgomery is a senior director at the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation (CCTI) at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He directs CSC 2.0, which works to implement the recommendations of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission.  Montgomery is a principal member of the Cyber Initiatives Group.

Glenn Corn

Glenn Corn is a former Senior Executive in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who worked for 34 years in the U.S. Intelligence, Defense, and Foreign Affairs communities.  He spent over 17 years serving overseas and served as the U.S. President’s Senior Representative on Intelligence and Security issues.  He is an Adjunct Professor at the Institute of World Politics.

The Cipher Brief: Is sending Tomahawk missiles going to enable Ukraine to do a lot more than it’s already capable of doing now? Would it make a difference?

Rear Admiral (Ret) Mark Montgomery: I’m going to caveat this. I’m not opposed to Tomahawks. But I think it’s “Tomahawks and.” And then how many Tomahawks? Ten Tomahawks won’t make a difference. 100 Tomahawks won’t make a difference. But 400 or 500 would. Is the U.S. willing to part with 400 or 500? Can Europe take a deep breath and pay for 400 or 500? And what are the Tomahawks going to look like? Are we going to strip them of certain capabilities and capacity? Then it becomes a slow land attack cruise missile. So I’m not sure.

Tomahawks would be helpful. What I’m sure would be much more, I think, operationally game-changing is the provision of the ERAM (Extended Range Attack Munition). And I’m thrilled with what the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Department of Defense writ large have done with the ERAM, which is effectively a small cruise missile with extended ranges well beyond ATACMS, but less than the Tomahawk. There’s multiple variants of it. And when it begins to deliver, it’ll be 10 here, 20 there, but eventually it should get up to about 100 a month for 20 months. And you can fire it from MiG-29s or Sukaloys or F-16s. This weapon is going to stretch the battlefield for the Russians and will force logistics and command and control and troop aggregation sites farther and farther from the front line.

And I don’t think the Russians have demonstrated the ability to properly control and support forces at long range and distances. So, if the Russians are stretched out like that, combined with the operational and strategic pressure from the long range unmanned Ukrainian UASs strikes, and maybe the addition of Tomahawks, particularly to target the refineries, I think all of this can really cause Putin to readjust his thinking.

So from my perspective, things could get better. It’s not “Tomahawks alone” or “Tomahawks or.” It’s “Tomahawks and”, and the “and” is the big thing. And that “and” to me is the ERAM.

Glenn Corn: I think that what Ukrainians are doing is great. The Tomahawks would just increase their ability and increase, I’d say, the volume of the attacks and deep strikes that they could conduct inside of Russia.

And of course there’s a symbolic and kind of political message here too. If the United States agrees to provide these weapons systems, it just shows that we’re not backing down and we’re not going to be intimidated by Moscow, which I’m sure the Ukrainians want to see because that’s a sign of political support. That’s important for them.

The Cipher Brief: Moscow is obviously rattling the sabers over the potential US Tomahawk decision. How do you assess Russia’s escalation threats to the U.S.?

Glenn Corn: I find it ironic when the Russians say they’re going to retaliate. They’re already launching attacks. They’re already targeting Ukraine and now also NATO countries, and I would say even U.S. interests. They’ve been doing it for years. So my own belief is it’s a lot of saber rattling. It’s a full court press right now in Moscow to try and deter Washington and Brussels from taking certain steps that will be extremely painful and costly for Moscow.

I’m sure that [talk of Tomahawks] increases Moscow’s level of concern. They definitely do not want the Ukrainians to have these weapon systems, and they’re making all kinds of threats. They’re looking for potential sore points with the U.S., for example, suggesting they will deploy new weapons systems to Nicaragua or Cuba. They’re going back to the Cold War playbook that led to the Cuba missile crisis.

So I’m not surprised. Experience has shown that the Russians make a lot of threats, but those threats tend to be empty. Let’s go back to all the threats they made over the F-16s, over the ATACMS, over Finland and Sweden joining NATO. I don’t think that they followed through on a lot of those threats, not in the near term, not on an immediate basis or not in an obvious way. They may, of course, respond in the future, but so far they have not followed through on threats to use nuclear weapons, which they’ve previously implied as a potential scenario. So, they haven’t followed through on previous threats. It doesn’t mean they won’t do it in the future, but my assessment is they will not. .

Rear Admiral (Ret) Mark Montgomery: Russia and China practice a similar provocation principle. We democracies bend and capitulate to the fear that an authoritarian regime might do something because they announce that they’ve got a red line or they’ve got an issue. And they provoke us. They tell us that the provocation will cause them to overreact and therefore we should stand down. At no point ever do they have the same sense of decorum or restraint, right? But apparently we’re supposed to practice that restraint. Enough of that. We need to do what we think is right. If it’s Tomahawks, fine. If it’s Tomahawks and ERAM, which is what I think it is, great. If it was E-RAM alone, I think it’d be great.

What I say is, I would not back off. One reason I support sending Tomahawks now is because the Russians oppose them so much and I feel compelled to support the decision, if it’s made, to send them. But the Russians are going to learn that they were complaining about the wrong thing. And by the time they learn that lesson, I think they’re going to be in a lot of pain.

In Summary:

The coming decision on Tomahawk cruise missiles is a true inflection point for both Ukraine and the U.S.: it could materially expand Kyiv’s ability to conduct deep-strike operations, but only if supplied in sufficient quantities and paired with the right launch and logistical support. US and Western leaders must weigh that operational upside against difficult questions – platform and delivery constraints, the need for complementary systems like ERAM, funding and NATO cooperation, and the very real risk of Moscow escalating its response. Whatever Washington decides will test U.S. resolve, reshape NATO burden-sharing conversations, and have consequences that reverberate across the battlefield in Ukraine and Russia.

Follow The Cipher Brief for more timely analysis and updates as this critical story develops.

Ethan Masucol, Ian Coleman and Connor Cowman contributed to this article.

## Summary & Analysis of “the Shifting Landscape of U.S. Support for Ukraine”

the arrival of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and key members of his administration in Washington D.C. on October 12, 2025, is occurring at a critical juncture in the ongoing ukraine conflict. The visit is primarily focused on securing continued – and potentially increased – U.S.military aid, notably concerning the delivery of long-range ATACMS missiles and other advanced weaponry. However, the trip is shadowed by growing political uncertainty in the United States regarding future aid packages, creating a high-stakes surroundings for diplomatic efforts. This article examines the context of the visit, the challenges facing Ukraine aid, the specifics of the missile deliveries debate, and potential implications for the war.

The Shifting Landscape of U.S. Support for Ukraine

For over a year, the United States has been the largest provider of security assistance to ukraine, totaling billions of dollars in military equipment, financial aid, and humanitarian assistance. This support has been instrumental in Ukraine’s ability to resist the Russian invasion. Though,recent developments within the U.S. political system are threatening the continuation of this aid flow.

* Congressional Divisions: A growing faction within the Republican party is expressing skepticism about the level of U.S. involvement in Ukraine, advocating for greater domestic spending and a more restrained foreign policy. This has led to delays and roadblocks in approving new aid packages.

* Budgetary Constraints: The U.S. federal budget is facing increasing pressure, with competing demands for funding in areas such as infrastructure, healthcare, and national debt reduction. This creates a challenging environment for allocating meaningful resources to foreign aid.

* Public Opinion: While initial public support for Ukraine was strong, recent polls indicate a slight decline, with a growing percentage of Americans expressing concerns about the cost of supporting the war. This shift in public sentiment is influencing the political debate.

* Upcoming Elections: The looming 2026 midterm elections are adding another layer of complexity, as politicians are increasingly focused on appealing to their base and avoiding politically sensitive issues. Ukraine funding has become increasingly politicized.

The ATACMS Missile Debate: A Critical Component of Ukraine’s Defense

Central to Zelenskyy’s discussions in Washington is the issue of ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System).These long-range, precision-guided missiles would considerably enhance Ukraine’s ability to strike key Russian military targets deep within occupied territory, including command centers, logistics hubs, and airfields.

* current Status: While the U.S. has previously hesitated to provide ATACMS due to concerns about escalation and depleting it’s own stockpiles, there is growing pressure to reconsider this position. Some limited quantities have been delivered, but Ukraine is requesting a significant increase.

* Strategic Importance: ATACMS would allow Ukraine to disrupt Russian supply lines, degrade its military capabilities, and potentially accelerate the pace of the counteroffensive. This is particularly crucial as Russia continues to fortify its defenses.

* Russian Countermeasures: Russia has repeatedly warned against the provision of long-range missiles to Ukraine, threatening retaliatory measures. This adds to the complexity of the decision-making process for U.S. policymakers.

* Alternative Systems: Discussions are also underway regarding the potential provision of other advanced weaponry, such as advanced air defense systems and long-range drones, to bolster Ukraine’s defenses. Air defense capabilities are a major priority for ukraine.

Key Talking Points for Zelenskyy’s Visit

President Zelenskyy’s agenda in Washington is multifaceted, focusing on not only securing immediate military aid but also building long-term security guarantees and strengthening the U.S.-Ukraine relationship.

1. Urgent Funding Request: Zelenskyy will emphasize the urgent need for continued U.S. funding to sustain Ukraine’s war effort and prevent further Russian advances. He will likely present detailed assessments of Ukraine’s military needs and the impact of potential aid cuts.
2. ATACMS and Advanced weaponry: A key objective is to secure a commitment for the delivery of a significant number of ATACMS missiles, as well as other advanced weaponry, to enhance Ukraine’s offensive capabilities.
3. Security Guarantees: Zelenskyy will seek to explore potential security guarantees from the United States, similar to those offered to other allies, to deter future Russian aggression. This could involve a long-term commitment to military assistance and security cooperation.
4. Economic Assistance: Beyond military aid, Zelenskyy will also advocate for increased economic assistance to help Ukraine rebuild its infrastructure and economy, which have been devastated by the war. Ukraine reconstruction is a long-term undertaking.
5. Sanctions Enforcement: He will urge the U.S. to strengthen sanctions against Russia and ensure their effective enforcement to cripple Russia’s ability to finance the war.

Real-World Example: The Impact of HIMARS on the Battlefield

The provision of HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems) to Ukraine in 2022 provides a valuable case study for the potential impact of advanced U.S. weaponry. HIMARS allowed Ukraine to precisely target Russian ammunition depots and command posts, significantly disrupting russian logistics and slowing their advance. The success of HIMARS demonstrates the effectiveness of precision-guided systems in modern warfare and underscores the potential benefits of providing ATACMS. This success story is being used by Ukrainian officials to advocate for further advanced weaponry.

Benefits of Continued U.S. Support

Continued U.S. support for Ukraine offers several strategic benefits, extending beyond the immediate defense of Ukraine.

* Deterrence of Russian Aggression: A strong and well-equipped Ukraine serves as a deterrent against further Russian aggression in Europe, protecting the security of U.S. allies.

* Upholding International Law: Supporting Ukraine demonstrates a commitment to upholding international law and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

* Strengthening Transatlantic Alliance: The crisis in Ukraine has strengthened the transatlantic alliance,uniting the United States and Europe in a common purpose.

* Weakening Russia’s Influence: A weakened Russia is less likely to pose a threat to U.S. interests and global stability.

* Demonstrating Commitment to Democracy: Supporting Ukraine sends a powerful message that the United States stands with democracies around the world.

Practical Tips for Staying Informed

Staying informed about the evolving situation in Ukraine and the U.S. aid debate requires a proactive approach.

* Follow Reputable News Sources: Rely on established news organizations with a track record of accurate reporting, such as the Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.

* Monitor Government Statements: Pay attention to official statements from the U.S. Department of Defense, the State Department, and Congress.

* Consult Think Tank Analysis: Read reports and analysis from reputable think tanks specializing in foreign policy and security studies, such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution.

* Utilize Social Media Carefully: Be cautious about data shared on social media and verify its accuracy before sharing it.

* Search Relevant Keywords: Use search terms like “Ukraine war news,” “U.S. aid to Ukraine,” “ATACMS missiles,” “Zelenskyy Washington visit,” and “Russia Ukraine conflict” to find relevant information.