Russia’s new nuclear doctrine stipulates that “the use of Western non-nuclear missiles by the Ukrainian Armed Forces against Russia may trigger a nuclear response.”
(upd5) As the Russia–Ukraine war approaches its fourth year, all indications suggest that the conflict is heading towards even greater escalation.
Many observers argue that the impending decision by US President Donald Trump to send Tomahawk missiles — the weapon long regarded as the symbol of American aggression — will push the world to the brink of nuclear war.
Russia has responded with threats, reminding the world of what its nuclear doctrine entails and reviving memories of the past — of the Cold War and, in particular, of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
Although many interpret these warnings as the final step before the use of nuclear weapons, analysts believe that the delivery of Tomahawks to Ukraine will not bring about a nuclear apocalypse.
However, it will usher in a new reality — one in which the position of the United States becomes far more difficult and dangerous.
The threats
Former Russian President and current Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, issued a stern warning, stating that Washington’s plans to supply Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles “could end badly for everyone — and especially for Trump.”
Medvedev wrote on the Russian platform Max that the potential shipment of Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv would benefit no one.
Conventional or nuclear weapons?
Medvedev emphasised that it is impossible to determine whether a flying Tomahawk missile carries a nuclear or a conventional warhead — a point that has been repeatedly stressed.
“The supply of these missiles could end badly for everyone — first and foremost for Trump,” Medvedev wrote.
“It won’t be Kyiv, but the United States, that will carry out the launches,” added the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council.
American involvement
Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that the launch of Tomahawk missiles would require the involvement of American military personnel, meaning that any potential delivery of such missiles to Kyiv could have serious consequences.
“The operation of these highly specialised missiles would necessarily involve the participation of American experts. That is an obvious fact,” he said.
Trump remains ambiguous
The Kremlin’s sharp statements came in response to US President Donald Trump’s recent remarks, in which he suggested that he might supply Kyiv with long-range Tomahawk missiles if Vladimir Putin refuses to end the war in Ukraine.
“The United States will not sell missiles directly to Ukraine, but will provide them to NATO, which will in turn deliver them to Ukraine.
Yes, I might say so — if the war doesn’t end, maybe we’ll do it. Maybe we won’t, but maybe we will.
Do they want the Tomahawks heading their way? I don’t think so,” Trump said.
Zelensky’s assurances
At the same time, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky assured President Trump during a phone call on 13 October that Kyiv would use the Tomahawk missiles only against Russian military targets.
He is also expected to provide similar assurances during their upcoming meeting at the White House on Friday, 17 October.
Echoes of 1962
The nuclear tension surrounding the potential delivery of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine recalls the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the United States and the Soviet Union stood on the brink of nuclear war over the stationing of missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads in Havana.
In reality, there are numerous parallels between the two situations.
In 1962, the United States reacted sharply because Cuba was only 90 miles from Florida.
Similarly, Moscow now points out that Washington is supplying long-range missiles — capable of carrying nuclear warheads — to a country that not only shares a border with Russia but is also at war with it.
Russia’s nuclear doctrine
It should be noted that Russia has already revised its nuclear weapons strategy.
In November 2024, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that the new amendments to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, signed by President Vladimir Putin, stipulate that “the use of Western non-nuclear missiles by the Ukrainian Armed Forces against Russia may trigger a nuclear response.”
Thus, the use of US-supplied Tomahawk missiles by Ukraine against Russia effectively crosses Moscow’s nuclear threshold.
But the key question remains:
Is there a real possibility that Moscow would resort to nuclear weapons because of the Tomahawks?
The Tomahawks
The Tomahawk is a medium-range (2,500 km or 1,550 miles), subsonic cruise missile launched from US Navy ships and submarines.
This missile would give Ukraine the capability to strike deep inside Russian territory — reaching Moscow and even further into the country.
The Tomahawk can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads.
It measures 6.1 metres in length, has a 2.6-metre wingspan, and weighs around 1,510 kilograms.
It can deliver a payload of 454 kilograms, and each missile costs roughly $1.3 million USD.
Hard to detect
The Tomahawk is designed to fly at subsonic speed while maintaining a low altitude, making it difficult to detect by radar.
It uses advanced guidance systems to manoeuvre at such low heights.
The missile was first used in combat during the 1991 Gulf War, in Operation Desert Storm.
It was later deployed during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and has also seen use in Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, and Syria.
More recently, Tomahawks were used against Houthi targets in Yemen and to strike Iran’s nuclear complex.
Variants of the Tomahawk
Since its inception, numerous versions of the Tomahawk have been developed.
According to Missile Threat, the Block I series included the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear (TLAM-N, TLAM-A, RGM/UGM-109A) and the Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM, RGM/UGM-109B).
The Block II variants included the TLAM-C (RGM/UGM-109C), designed for hardened targets, and the TLAM-D (RGM/UGM-109D), aimed at “soft” targets such as aircraft and troop concentrations.
The Block III upgrades introduced new electronic capabilities, enabling coordinated strikes.
The Block IV, the most modern version, can “loiter” in the air for hours and is equipped with a two-way communication link, allowing it to receive real-time mission updates and course corrections.
Could Russia use nuclear weapons?
Under Russia’s new nuclear weapons strategy, Moscow could resort to nuclear weapons if Ukrainian Armed Forces strike Russian territory using “Western non-nuclear missiles.”
According to this doctrine, the use of US-supplied Tomahawk missiles by Ukraine would cross Moscow’s nuclear threshold.
It is worth noting that Russia revised its nuclear policy in November of last year, after former US President Joe Biden authorised Ukraine to carry out long-range strikes inside Russian territory.
Until then, the Kremlin had maintained that the use of Western-supplied weapons by Ukraine for attacks on mainland Russia represented a red line, warning that it would not hesitate to employ nuclear weapons in response.
The example of ATACMS and storm shadow
At the time, the main issue concerned Ukraine’s use of ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles supplied by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.
Since then, however, Ukraine has repeatedly used both ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles against Russia — without triggering a nuclear response from Moscow.
Russia’s objection that it cannot determine whether a Tomahawk in flight carries a conventional or nuclear payload also diverges from reality, since Ukraine does not possess nuclear warheads.
Moreover, both the ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles — already used numerous times by Ukraine — are also nuclear-capable systems.
If Moscow did not resort to nuclear strikes during their use, there is little reason to believe the Kremlin would turn to its nuclear arsenal if Ukraine were to launch Tomahawks.
The case of the F-16s and mirages
Russia made similar statements when F-16 fighter jets from the US and Mirage-2000 aircraft from France were delivered to Ukraine.
Both aircraft types are capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
At the time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that US-made F-16s could be configured to “host” nuclear weapons, and that their transfer to Ukraine would further escalate the conflict.
“We must keep in mind that one of the F-16 variants can host nuclear weapons,” Lavrov said in a speech at a military base in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.
A strategic response
These previous developments in the Russia–Ukraine war indicate that, while the supply of Tomahawk missiles would mark a dangerous escalation, their use is unlikely to trigger a nuclear apocalypse.
At the same time, although the delivery of these missiles would militarily hurt Moscow, it is not expected to dramatically alter the battlefield dynamics, as previous supplies — such as ATACMS, Storm Shadow, F-16s, and Mirage-2000s — have not significantly shifted the situation.
While Russia continues to invoke the nuclear threat, it is more likely to respond by arming US adversaries, such as Iran and North Korea, with more advanced weapons systems.
Message from Moscow: Waiting for Trump’s decision
The decision on whether to deliver US-made Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine should depend on the outcome of the upcoming meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, referring to their planned October 17 summit at the White House.
“Let’s wait and see the statements, let’s hear and analyse them,” Peskov said.
“For now, these are media reports.
But we know that the President himself confirmed that a meeting with Zelensky in Washington will take place.
We’ll see what comes out of it,” he added.
Peskov stressed that Russia continues its special military operation in Ukraine due to the lack of alternatives but remains ready for a peaceful settlement.
“Russia is ready for a peaceful resolution,” he said.
“At the moment, because there are no other options, Russia continues the special military operation,” he explained, emphasising that Moscow remains open and willing to engage in peaceful dialogue.
“In one way or another, Russia will safeguard its interests and achieve the objectives it has set,” Peskov concluded.
What does Trump want with the Tomahawks? — To pressure Germany over the Taurus
The possible decision by US President Donald Trump to send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine aims, among other things, to push Europe into more decisive action for Ukraine — specifically to pressure Berlin to deliver Taurus missiles to Kyiv, the Ukrainian newspaper Kyiv Post argues.
“This move is strategically designed not only to strengthen Ukraine’s defence but also to force hesitant European allies, especially Germany on the Taurus issue, to follow suit,” the paper notes.
Trump previously said he has nearly decided on the possible provision of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine but would like to understand how the Kyiv regime intends to use them.
Last July Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he had discussed with Volodymyr Zelensky the possibility of training Ukrainian troops to use the Taurus missiles. According to Merz, no agreements on troop training have yet been reached, but he did not rule the prospect out. He stressed that the Taurus are “very complex systems” and that training would therefore require at least six months.
Russia has signalled that the supply of Tomahawk and Taurus missiles will not by itself change the course of the war in Ukraine.
Lukashenko (Belarus): Tomahawks are a severe escalation, they could even bring nuclear war
The delivery of American Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine will not change the frontline situation and will lead to escalation up to nuclear war, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed, adding that Trump probably understands this better than anyone, Lukashenko said.
He stated that Belarus favours an immediate end to the conflict in Ukraine; otherwise Ukraine will cease to exist.
“We have made our position clear: peace, peace and only peace. Ukraine must exist as a sovereign and independent state. We are for an immediate cessation of the war — otherwise that independent sovereign state will disappear. Especially since some people — you know who — are already eyeing the western regions of Ukraine,” Lukashenko said, adding that Belarus is always ready to contribute to a peaceful solution.
“If the Americans want to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and see a small role for us there, we are ready to participate. We have stated our position clearly,” he added.
Ukraine has no launchers for Tomahawks — Rakhmanin (MP): We’ll throw them by hand
Even if President Trump’s administration decides to deliver Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, Kyiv will not be able to use them because it lacks launchers, Ukrainian MP Sergey Rakhmanin argued.
“They can give us two Tomahawks. We’ll launch them like real Native American tomahawks. We’ll just throw them by hand. With what will we fire them?” the MP asked, commenting on the possible transfer of the missiles to the Kyiv regime.
According to Rakhmanin, Western Washington allies had requested land-based Tomahawk launch systems for Ukraine, but were told to wait a few years to receive a limited number of launchers.
“And they are waiting. And here they would give them to us? Maybe miracles happen, but for now I don’t imagine it — especially with Trump, who gives nothing for free, and Europe will never pay that sort of money for us,” Rakhmanin concluded.
www.bankingnews.gr
Many observers argue that the impending decision by US President Donald Trump to send Tomahawk missiles — the weapon long regarded as the symbol of American aggression — will push the world to the brink of nuclear war.
Russia has responded with threats, reminding the world of what its nuclear doctrine entails and reviving memories of the past — of the Cold War and, in particular, of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
Although many interpret these warnings as the final step before the use of nuclear weapons, analysts believe that the delivery of Tomahawks to Ukraine will not bring about a nuclear apocalypse.
However, it will usher in a new reality — one in which the position of the United States becomes far more difficult and dangerous.
The threats
Former Russian President and current Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev, issued a stern warning, stating that Washington’s plans to supply Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles “could end badly for everyone — and especially for Trump.”
Medvedev wrote on the Russian platform Max that the potential shipment of Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv would benefit no one.
Conventional or nuclear weapons?
Medvedev emphasised that it is impossible to determine whether a flying Tomahawk missile carries a nuclear or a conventional warhead — a point that has been repeatedly stressed.
“The supply of these missiles could end badly for everyone — first and foremost for Trump,” Medvedev wrote.
“It won’t be Kyiv, but the United States, that will carry out the launches,” added the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council.
American involvement
Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that the launch of Tomahawk missiles would require the involvement of American military personnel, meaning that any potential delivery of such missiles to Kyiv could have serious consequences.
“The operation of these highly specialised missiles would necessarily involve the participation of American experts. That is an obvious fact,” he said.
Trump remains ambiguous
The Kremlin’s sharp statements came in response to US President Donald Trump’s recent remarks, in which he suggested that he might supply Kyiv with long-range Tomahawk missiles if Vladimir Putin refuses to end the war in Ukraine.
“The United States will not sell missiles directly to Ukraine, but will provide them to NATO, which will in turn deliver them to Ukraine.
Yes, I might say so — if the war doesn’t end, maybe we’ll do it. Maybe we won’t, but maybe we will.
Do they want the Tomahawks heading their way? I don’t think so,” Trump said.
Zelensky’s assurances
At the same time, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky assured President Trump during a phone call on 13 October that Kyiv would use the Tomahawk missiles only against Russian military targets.
He is also expected to provide similar assurances during their upcoming meeting at the White House on Friday, 17 October.
Echoes of 1962
The nuclear tension surrounding the potential delivery of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine recalls the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the United States and the Soviet Union stood on the brink of nuclear war over the stationing of missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads in Havana.
In reality, there are numerous parallels between the two situations.
In 1962, the United States reacted sharply because Cuba was only 90 miles from Florida.
Similarly, Moscow now points out that Washington is supplying long-range missiles — capable of carrying nuclear warheads — to a country that not only shares a border with Russia but is also at war with it.
Russia’s nuclear doctrine
It should be noted that Russia has already revised its nuclear weapons strategy.
In November 2024, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that the new amendments to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, signed by President Vladimir Putin, stipulate that “the use of Western non-nuclear missiles by the Ukrainian Armed Forces against Russia may trigger a nuclear response.”
Thus, the use of US-supplied Tomahawk missiles by Ukraine against Russia effectively crosses Moscow’s nuclear threshold.
But the key question remains:
Is there a real possibility that Moscow would resort to nuclear weapons because of the Tomahawks?
The Tomahawks
The Tomahawk is a medium-range (2,500 km or 1,550 miles), subsonic cruise missile launched from US Navy ships and submarines.
This missile would give Ukraine the capability to strike deep inside Russian territory — reaching Moscow and even further into the country.
The Tomahawk can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads.
It measures 6.1 metres in length, has a 2.6-metre wingspan, and weighs around 1,510 kilograms.
It can deliver a payload of 454 kilograms, and each missile costs roughly $1.3 million USD.
Hard to detect
The Tomahawk is designed to fly at subsonic speed while maintaining a low altitude, making it difficult to detect by radar.
It uses advanced guidance systems to manoeuvre at such low heights.
The missile was first used in combat during the 1991 Gulf War, in Operation Desert Storm.
It was later deployed during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and has also seen use in Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, and Syria.
More recently, Tomahawks were used against Houthi targets in Yemen and to strike Iran’s nuclear complex.
Variants of the Tomahawk
Since its inception, numerous versions of the Tomahawk have been developed.
According to Missile Threat, the Block I series included the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile-Nuclear (TLAM-N, TLAM-A, RGM/UGM-109A) and the Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM, RGM/UGM-109B).
The Block II variants included the TLAM-C (RGM/UGM-109C), designed for hardened targets, and the TLAM-D (RGM/UGM-109D), aimed at “soft” targets such as aircraft and troop concentrations.
The Block III upgrades introduced new electronic capabilities, enabling coordinated strikes.
The Block IV, the most modern version, can “loiter” in the air for hours and is equipped with a two-way communication link, allowing it to receive real-time mission updates and course corrections.
Could Russia use nuclear weapons?
Under Russia’s new nuclear weapons strategy, Moscow could resort to nuclear weapons if Ukrainian Armed Forces strike Russian territory using “Western non-nuclear missiles.”
According to this doctrine, the use of US-supplied Tomahawk missiles by Ukraine would cross Moscow’s nuclear threshold.
It is worth noting that Russia revised its nuclear policy in November of last year, after former US President Joe Biden authorised Ukraine to carry out long-range strikes inside Russian territory.
Until then, the Kremlin had maintained that the use of Western-supplied weapons by Ukraine for attacks on mainland Russia represented a red line, warning that it would not hesitate to employ nuclear weapons in response.
The example of ATACMS and storm shadow
At the time, the main issue concerned Ukraine’s use of ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles supplied by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.
Since then, however, Ukraine has repeatedly used both ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles against Russia — without triggering a nuclear response from Moscow.
Russia’s objection that it cannot determine whether a Tomahawk in flight carries a conventional or nuclear payload also diverges from reality, since Ukraine does not possess nuclear warheads.
Moreover, both the ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles — already used numerous times by Ukraine — are also nuclear-capable systems.
If Moscow did not resort to nuclear strikes during their use, there is little reason to believe the Kremlin would turn to its nuclear arsenal if Ukraine were to launch Tomahawks.
The case of the F-16s and mirages
Russia made similar statements when F-16 fighter jets from the US and Mirage-2000 aircraft from France were delivered to Ukraine.
Both aircraft types are capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
At the time, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that US-made F-16s could be configured to “host” nuclear weapons, and that their transfer to Ukraine would further escalate the conflict.
“We must keep in mind that one of the F-16 variants can host nuclear weapons,” Lavrov said in a speech at a military base in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.
A strategic response
These previous developments in the Russia–Ukraine war indicate that, while the supply of Tomahawk missiles would mark a dangerous escalation, their use is unlikely to trigger a nuclear apocalypse.
At the same time, although the delivery of these missiles would militarily hurt Moscow, it is not expected to dramatically alter the battlefield dynamics, as previous supplies — such as ATACMS, Storm Shadow, F-16s, and Mirage-2000s — have not significantly shifted the situation.
While Russia continues to invoke the nuclear threat, it is more likely to respond by arming US adversaries, such as Iran and North Korea, with more advanced weapons systems.
Message from Moscow: Waiting for Trump’s decision
The decision on whether to deliver US-made Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine should depend on the outcome of the upcoming meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, referring to their planned October 17 summit at the White House.
“Let’s wait and see the statements, let’s hear and analyse them,” Peskov said.
“For now, these are media reports.
But we know that the President himself confirmed that a meeting with Zelensky in Washington will take place.
We’ll see what comes out of it,” he added.
Peskov stressed that Russia continues its special military operation in Ukraine due to the lack of alternatives but remains ready for a peaceful settlement.
“Russia is ready for a peaceful resolution,” he said.
“At the moment, because there are no other options, Russia continues the special military operation,” he explained, emphasising that Moscow remains open and willing to engage in peaceful dialogue.
“In one way or another, Russia will safeguard its interests and achieve the objectives it has set,” Peskov concluded.
What does Trump want with the Tomahawks? — To pressure Germany over the Taurus
The possible decision by US President Donald Trump to send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine aims, among other things, to push Europe into more decisive action for Ukraine — specifically to pressure Berlin to deliver Taurus missiles to Kyiv, the Ukrainian newspaper Kyiv Post argues.
“This move is strategically designed not only to strengthen Ukraine’s defence but also to force hesitant European allies, especially Germany on the Taurus issue, to follow suit,” the paper notes.
Trump previously said he has nearly decided on the possible provision of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine but would like to understand how the Kyiv regime intends to use them.
Last July Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he had discussed with Volodymyr Zelensky the possibility of training Ukrainian troops to use the Taurus missiles. According to Merz, no agreements on troop training have yet been reached, but he did not rule the prospect out. He stressed that the Taurus are “very complex systems” and that training would therefore require at least six months.
Russia has signalled that the supply of Tomahawk and Taurus missiles will not by itself change the course of the war in Ukraine.
Lukashenko (Belarus): Tomahawks are a severe escalation, they could even bring nuclear war
The delivery of American Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine will not change the frontline situation and will lead to escalation up to nuclear war, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko claimed, adding that Trump probably understands this better than anyone, Lukashenko said.
He stated that Belarus favours an immediate end to the conflict in Ukraine; otherwise Ukraine will cease to exist.
“We have made our position clear: peace, peace and only peace. Ukraine must exist as a sovereign and independent state. We are for an immediate cessation of the war — otherwise that independent sovereign state will disappear. Especially since some people — you know who — are already eyeing the western regions of Ukraine,” Lukashenko said, adding that Belarus is always ready to contribute to a peaceful solution.
“If the Americans want to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and see a small role for us there, we are ready to participate. We have stated our position clearly,” he added.
Ukraine has no launchers for Tomahawks — Rakhmanin (MP): We’ll throw them by hand
Even if President Trump’s administration decides to deliver Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, Kyiv will not be able to use them because it lacks launchers, Ukrainian MP Sergey Rakhmanin argued.
“They can give us two Tomahawks. We’ll launch them like real Native American tomahawks. We’ll just throw them by hand. With what will we fire them?” the MP asked, commenting on the possible transfer of the missiles to the Kyiv regime.
According to Rakhmanin, Western Washington allies had requested land-based Tomahawk launch systems for Ukraine, but were told to wait a few years to receive a limited number of launchers.
“And they are waiting. And here they would give them to us? Maybe miracles happen, but for now I don’t imagine it — especially with Trump, who gives nothing for free, and Europe will never pay that sort of money for us,” Rakhmanin concluded.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών