Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

 

The US is mulling over a request from Ukraine for long-range Tomahawk missiles, according to US Vice-President JD Vance. President Donald Trump will make the final decision on this significant matter. Kyiv argues that these missiles could severely impact Russia's military operations and potentially hasten the war's end.

 

Ukraine has pressed its Western allies for weapons capable of striking deep into Russian territory, citing the need to weaken Moscow's military capabilities. Ukraine’s Deputy Defence Minister Ivan Havryliuk emphasised that substantial costs to Moscow from extended wartime efforts could push them towards peace talks. However, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed the potential impact of such missiles on the conflict's dynamics, asserting they wouldn't alter the battlefield situation significantly.

 

Vance appeared uncertain about Ukraine's request during his recent comments. Meanwhile, US special envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, indicated Trump might have already approved strategic strikes within Russian borders. On a separate note, Trump recently expressed newfound optimism about Ukraine reclaiming its full territory, a stance that has shifted from previous scepticism about Kyiv's ability to withstand Russian aggression.

 

The recent uptick in US support reflects Trump's reported frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dual approach of publicly discussing peace while continuing to bombard Ukrainian cities. A recent 12-hour attack on Kyiv with drones and missiles resulted in casualties and extensive damage, underscoring the urgent need for more robust defence mechanisms. Ukraine has requested additional Patriot surface-to-air systems to bolster its air defence and seeks to prevent Russian drones from reaching EU airspace.

 

Havryliuk did not provide specifics regarding the delivery of these systems but noted positive developments. The escalation of aerial assaults by Russia, with newer and more advanced drones, presents an ongoing challenge for Ukraine. The recent deployment of sophisticated Iranian-made drones exemplifies this advancement, making past defences less effective.

 

Ukraine asserts that enhancing its air defences would secure both its own territory and that of the broader European region. This is particularly pertinent following Russian drones' incursions into Polish airspace, raising security concerns across Europe.

 

 

 

Key Takeaways:

 

• US considers Ukraine's request for long-range missiles; Trump to decide.
• Recent attacks highlight need for stronger Ukrainian air defences.
• Enhanced air defences seen as beneficial to wider European security.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-09-30

 

 

 

I support Trump sending long-range missiles to Ukraine; it could be the final nail in Russia's coffin.

 

The quick and easy solution would be what we could call "10 a week":

If Putin doesn't stop the war this week, the US will give Russia 10 Patriot batteries; if he still doesn't stop it, the following week 10 Tomahawk missiles, the following week 10 F-16s, the following week 10 M1 Abrams, the following week 10 artillery batteries... in a few weeks, a war that has been going on for years and should never have started would be over.

 

 

1 hour ago, Espanol said:

 

The quick and easy solution would be what we could call "10 a week":

If Putin doesn't stop the war this week, the US will give Russia 10 Patriot batteries; if he still doesn't stop it, the following week 10 Tomahawk missiles, the following week 10 F-16s, the following week 10 M1 Abrams, the following week 10 artillery batteries... in a few weeks, a war that has been going on for years and should never have started would be over.

 

 

Will give Russia??anyway I’m all for supplying Ukraine with long range weapons as long as they aren’t used against civilians this should have been done from the git go instead of humping putins leg and betraying Ukraine.anyway deeds not words.I will believe it when I see it.

I wonder how many long range drones would equal 1 Tomahawk missile. Drones are the way to go IMO. 1 tomahawk can be intercepted. Not so easy with hundreds of drones.

This conflict will continue to be what it has been from the get-go, tit for tat.

"I'll raise you a Tomahawk."

"I'll see you with a hypersonic."

"Done, just a THAAD."

It's too profitable to end anytime soon.

1 hour ago, CMHomeboy78 said:

This conflict will continue to be what it has been from the get-go, tit for tat.

"I'll raise you a Tomahawk."

"I'll see you with a hypersonic."

"Done, just a THAAD."

It's too profitable to end anytime soon.

I dono seems to me Russias economy is going down the toilet and his cannon fodder ain’t to happy 

As usual the hypocrite he is. When Biden allowed Ukraine to use long-range US missles to launch attacks last November, Trump and his band of sycophants were accusing Biden of seeking to spark WW3. Trump Jr wrote this piece of sh... " The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get WW3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives". Now Trump is admitting that Biden was right most of the time. Eat crow Trump. 

21 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

As usual the hypocrite he is. When Biden allowed Ukraine to use long-range US missles to launch attacks last November, Trump and his band of sycophants were accusing Biden of seeking to spark WW3. Trump Jr wrote this piece of sh... " The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get WW3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives". Now Trump is admitting that Biden was right most of the time. Eat crow Trump. 

I wonder if trumps malignant narcissism is allowing him to see just how much he’s been played the fool by putin and little Kim……we all know how he treats people he thinks got over on him…..that being said and if that’s the case I for one don’t want an incompetent person in charge if it does hit the fan!!!

 

 

The russians dug out the hatchet.

Tomahawks hopefully coming after them. 

 

Goood...

Just a bluff. The US tomahawk missiles are fired from ships. 

1 minute ago, jippytum said:

Just a bluff. The US tomahawk missiles are fired from ships. 

Tomahawks can be launched from sea and land.

13 minutes ago, jippytum said:

Just a bluff. The US tomahawk missiles are fired from ships. 

15 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Tomahawks can be launched from sea and land.

Currently the US do not have the capacity or the man power to train the Ukrainians to use land based tomahawks. 

It would take months if not years to deploy tomahawks from Ukcrain landbases. 

2 minutes ago, jippytum said:

Currently the US do not have the capacity or the man power to train the Ukrainians to use land based tomahawks. 

It would take months if not years to deploy tomahawks from Ukcrain landbases. 

Proof? Link.

12 minutes ago, jippytum said:

Currently the US do not have the capacity or the man power to train the Ukrainians to use land based tomahawks. 

It would take months if not years to deploy tomahawks from Ukcrain landbases. 

Zelensky want US to send them the Tomahawks immediately which indicate that Ukrainian military does have the ability to use the missiles. Ukraine already has their own domestically manufactured missiles like the Neptune and Flamingo that were used to strike deep into Russia. That kind of experience may gave them lots of confidence to use the Tomahawks as soon as they are delivered. Just hope Trump will not perform another TACO. 

What is the range of a Tomahawk missile?

They could certainly be launched from a ship in the Black Sea so Crimean targets would be possible.  Maybe they haven't the range to get to Moscow bu there might be other, nearer targets.

29 minutes ago, jippytum said:

Currently the US do not have the capacity or the man power to train the Ukrainians to use land based tomahawks. 

It would take months if not years to deploy tomahawks from Ukcrain landbases. 

The BGM-109G Gryphon was a ground-launched variant of the Tomahawk cruise missile developed by the United States Air Force in the last decade of the Cold War and disarmed under the INF Treaty. (1983 - 1991).

 

No new technique. Enough trained people in Europe.

5 hours ago, CMHomeboy78 said:

This conflict will continue to be what it has been from the get-go, tit for tat.

"I'll raise you a Tomahawk."

"I'll see you with a hypersonic."

"Done, just a THAAD."

It's too profitable to end anytime soon.

Spot on.

It's another "Gift that keeps on giving."

Just like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the wars in the Middle East to keep the neighborhood safe for Israel, not to mention all that oil in the region.

Trump Weighs Supplying Ukraine Long-Range Missiles

 

That will be escalatory.  Realistically NATO's goal is to strategically defeat and break-up Russia, set up a puppet regime like they had in the 1990s with Yeltsin, and give the Russian resources over to Western corporations.  So NATO has been steadily marching Eastward to the Russian border - which is the "root cause" of the current Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine. 

So both the US and EU/UK want a hot kinetic war with Russian, but like penguins on an ice-flow, no individual country wants to provoke Russia into a hot-war by themselves.  Now the US plans to send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine?  The Tomahawk will need to be programmed by US military assets with the clearances to access the targeting systems in the form of US satellite and AWAC data.  So any Tomahawk aimed and fired at Moscow will be an overt, act of war by the United States.  The US and the US war hawk still believe that two oceans protect the US from the rest of the world.  Not anymore.  If a Tomahawk hits the Kremlin?  Well, about 75% of the Asean Now members would cheer in joy.  Until the Moscow leadership fires back.  And, the Tomawawk is a nuclear capable missile.  If fired at Moscow, the Russian military wouldn't know of the payload is conventional or nuclear, therefore it would be treated as a nuclear first-strike.  Then the world, as we know it, ends.  



I still 100% believe that the human race doesn't make it past 2030 as the West is now preparing to engage in hot-wars with Russia, China, Iran, Yemen, Venezuela, and probably other Latin American countries as well.  This includes positioning shared nuclear capable missiles pointed at Russia and China in the name of "countering Russian and Chinese aggression."  Unfortunately the provocation is coming from the West in the form of NATO and US allies. 
If Tomahawks are positioned in Urkriane and fired at Moscow and Russian heartland assets - personally I believe it is game over.  Boom!  The duck and cover drills we learned in the US during the October 1962 Cuban Missile situation aren't going to save anyone.  I knew that as a 10 year old. 
 
Those of us who consider themselves global citizens and who study global geopolitics and history understand the realities for what they are.  Those citizens, especially in the West, who are raging for war with "all enemies of the West?"  Clueless and insane, and soon to collectively win a global Darwin Award and take the rest of us with them.  The only "winners" are the Malthusian elites with deep, underground, "continuity of survival," nuclear bunkers.  So perhaps, according to an AI query I made, perhaps 100,000 government, military, corporate elites will survive globally in underground bunkers.  Maybe another million or so in the far latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere - maybe...maybe not.  Morlocks and Eloi.

And regarding bunkers - like George Carlin so aptly stated, "It's a big club and you ain't in it."

9 minutes ago, connda said:

Trump Weighs Supplying Ukraine Long-Range Missiles

 

Then the world, as we know it, ends.  



I still 100% believe that the human race doesn't make it past 2030 as the West is now preparing to engage in hot-wars with Russia, China, Iran, Yemen, Venezuela, and probably other Latin American countries as well.  This includes positioning shared nuclear capable missiles pointed at Russia and China in the name of "countering Russian and Chinese aggression."  Unfortunately the provocation is coming from the West in the form of NATO and US allies. 
If Tomahawks are positioned in Urkriane and fired at Moscow and Russian heartland assets - personally I believe it is game over.  Boom!  The duck and cover drills we learned in the US during the 1963 Cuban Missile situation aren't going to save anyone.
 
Those of us who consider themselves global citizens and who study global geopolitics and history understand the realities for what they are.  Those citizens, especially in the West, who are raging for war with "all enemies of the West?"  Clueless and insane, and soon to collectively win a global Darwin Award.  The only "winners" are the Malthusian elites with deep, underground, "continuity of survival," nuclear bunkers.  So perhaps, according to an AI query I made, perhaps 100,000 government and military elites will survive globally in underground bunkers.  Maybe another million or so in the far latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere - maybe...maybe not. 

And like George Carlin so aptly stated, "It's a big club and you ain't in it."

Nuclear bunker scene. 
 

 

21 minutes ago, connda said:

Trump Weighs Supplying Ukraine Long-Range Missiles

 

That will be escalatory.  Realistically NATO's goal is to strategically defeat and break-up Russia, set up a puppet regime like they had in the 1990s with Yeltsin, and give the Russian resources over to Western corporations.  So NATO has been steadily marching Eastward to the Russian border - which is the "root cause" of the current Russian Special Military Operation in Ukraine. 

So both the US and EU/UK want a hot kinetic war with Russian, but like penguins on an ice-flow, no individual country wants to provoke Russia into a hot-war by themselves.  Now the US plans to send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine?  The Tomahawk will need to be programmed by US military assets with the clearances to access the targeting systems in the form of US satellite and AWAC data.  So any Tomahawk aimed and fired at Moscow will be an overt, act of war by the United States.  The US and the US war hawk still believe that two oceans protect the US from the rest of the world.  Not anymore.  If a Tomahawk hits the Kremlin?  Well, about 75% of the Asean Now members would cheer in joy.  Until the Moscow leadership fires back.  And, the Tomawawk is a nuclear capable missile.  If fired at Moscow, the Russian military wouldn't know of the payload is conventional or nuclear, therefore it would be treated as a nuclear first-strike.  Then the world, as we know it, ends.  



I still 100% believe that the human race doesn't make it past 2030 as the West is now preparing to engage in hot-wars with Russia, China, Iran, Yemen, Venezuela, and probably other Latin American countries as well.  This includes positioning shared nuclear capable missiles pointed at Russia and China in the name of "countering Russian and Chinese aggression."  Unfortunately the provocation is coming from the West in the form of NATO and US allies. 
If Tomahawks are positioned in Urkriane and fired at Moscow and Russian heartland assets - personally I believe it is game over.  Boom!  The duck and cover drills we learned in the US during the October 1962 Cuban Missile situation aren't going to save anyone.  I knew that as a 10 year old. 
 
Those of us who consider themselves global citizens and who study global geopolitics and history understand the realities for what they are.  Those citizens, especially in the West, who are raging for war with "all enemies of the West?"  Clueless and insane, and soon to collectively win a global Darwin Award and take the rest of us with them.  The only "winners" are the Malthusian elites with deep, underground, "continuity of survival," nuclear bunkers.  So perhaps, according to an AI query I made, perhaps 100,000 government, military, corporate elites will survive globally in underground bunkers.  Maybe another million or so in the far latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere - maybe...maybe not.  Morlocks and Eloi.

And regarding bunkers - like George Carlin so aptly stated, "It's a big club and you ain't in it."

Why is the possible use of Tomahawks to strike Russia an act of war when the Russian has being using similar destructive Kalipr missiles striking Ukraine numerous times. Both kind of missiles have the same destructive power with their 500 kg bombs. Ukraine is only responding to Russia escalation as a form of deterrence.

 

Hace 8 horas, Español dijo:

 

The quick and easy solution would be what we could call "10 a week":

If Putin doesn't stop the war this week, the US will give Russia 10 Patriot batteries; if he still doesn't stop it, the following week 10 Tomahawk missiles, the following week 10 F-16s, the following week 10 M1 Abrams, the following week 10 artillery batteries... in a few weeks, a war that has been going on for years and should never have started would be over.

 

 

 

 

 

Hace 7 horas, Tug dijo:

Will give Russia??anyway I’m all for supplying Ukraine with long range weapons as long as they aren’t used against civilians this should have been done from the git go instead of humping putins leg and betraying Ukraine.anyway deeds not words.I will believe it when I see it.

 

 

Obviously, they were meant to be given to Ukraine, not Russia, but AN doesn't allow editing messages sent after a few minutes.

 

53 minutes ago, Espanol said:

Obviously, they were meant to be given to Ukraine, not Russia, but AN doesn't allow editing messages sent after a few minutes.

 

Hola mucho gusto, a message to a moderator is always a possibility.

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Why is the possible use of Tomahawks to strike Russia an act of war when the Russian has being using similar destructive Kalipr missiles striking Ukraine numerous times. Both kind of missiles have the same destructive power with their 500 kg bombs. Ukraine is only responding to Russia escalation as a form of deterrence.

 

Are you seriously incapable of seeing the difference here? The US would be supplying and authorising the Tomahawk missile against Russia. Russia however is striking UKraine, not the US.

 

What we want to avoid is a nuclear war between two nuclear powers. At all costs. Ukraine is not a nuclear power. How are you not able to see the facts clearly here?

Yeah sure

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

Are you seriously incapable of seeing the difference here? The US would be supplying and authorising the Tomahawk missile against Russia. Russia however is striking UKraine, not the US.

 

What we want to avoid is a nuclear war between two nuclear powers. At all costs. Ukraine is not a nuclear power. How are you not able to see the facts clearly here?

Yeah, all these russian red lines. Started with helmets, went on with Tanks, ammunition, Himars, F-16 etc.pp.

 

Really old and worn out russian threats and propaganda.

5 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said:

Yeah sure

Yeah, all these russian red lines. Started with helmets, went on with Tanks, ammunition, Himars, F-16 etc.pp.

 

Really old and worn out russian threats and propaganda.

 

Russia could pulverize Switzerland in 87 seconds. 

 

Only ash and nuclear radation would be left.

 

Toblerone, all gone.

 

An interesting aside-

Russian television channels have unearthed some of the conversations Vladimir Putin had with Donald Trump in Alaska. Among the things the pair negotiated on were plans for a "new Ukraine", as well as the potential for a "Trump-style Europe".

 

But as talk of peace seems further away than ever between Kyiv and Moscow, alleged new recordings of Putin 's conversations with Trump have been leaked by Russian media. The negotiations touched on a host of other subjects, including the rise of pro-Trump governments across Europe.

 

Former deputy of parliament Sergey Stankevich said that he had heard all of the conversations between the two leaders. He explained that Trump had been told by Putin that Europe needed to be realigned towards his policies.

"Trump was told, 'You need a new Europe, a Trumpist Europe and we need a new Ukraine,'" Sergey explained. "It suited them both well."

 

Russian TV exposes Putin and Trump's Alaska chat on need of 'Trumpist Europe'

 

Russian TV 'reveals' Putin and Trump's Alaska conversation over need of 'Trumpist Europe and new Ukraine'© Reach Publishing Services Limited

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

 

An interesting aside-

Russian television channels have unearthed some of the conversations Vladimir Putin had with Donald Trump in Alaska. Among the things the pair negotiated on were plans for a "new Ukraine", as well as the potential for a "Trump-style Europe".

 

But as talk of peace seems further away than ever between Kyiv and Moscow, alleged new recordings of Putin 's conversations with Trump have been leaked by Russian media. The negotiations touched on a host of other subjects, including the rise of pro-Trump governments across Europe.

 

Former deputy of parliament Sergey Stankevich said that he had heard all of the conversations between the two leaders. He explained that Trump had been told by Putin that Europe needed to be realigned towards his policies.

"Trump was told, 'You need a new Europe, a Trumpist Europe and we need a new Ukraine,'" Sergey explained. "It suited them both well."

 

Russian TV exposes Putin and Trump's Alaska chat on need of 'Trumpist Europe'

 

Russian TV 'reveals' Putin and Trump's Alaska conversation over need of 'Trumpist Europe and new Ukraine'© Reach Publishing Services Limited

 

If this is true, and Trump is actually looking to shape Europe in the Trump mould, then you truly have to take your hat off to the ambition of the man.

 

Unheard of Vision.

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Russia could pulverize Switzerland in 87 seconds. 

 

Only ash and nuclear radation would be left.

 

Toblerone, all gone.

1. I don't live in Switzerland.

2. Switzerland is very important for Putin. 35% of the worlds oil is traded there.

3. Toblerone isn't swiss (anymore). And also went really down the drain when the original owners sold it to Mondolez (Kraft Foods). No swiss chocolate anymore since 1990.