Moscow has expressed "extreme concern" following President Trump's threat to send Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine unless Russia's invasion ends. Trump mentioned this potential escalation while traveling to the Middle East, suggesting he might warn Putin to settle the conflict or face Tomahawk deployment. The US president stated that Ukraine's President Zelenskyy requested the missiles to bolster defenses.

 

Zelenskyy remains hopeful about securing long-range precision-strike weapons, confirming talks with US officials on obtaining Tomahawks and other systems. A Ukrainian delegation is scheduled to visit the US this week to further these discussions. Despite Trump's indication of a decision on missile supplies, he has not elaborated on specifics.

 

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov highlighted the escalated tensions with the US, while Belarus President Lukashenko downplayed the immediacy of the threat, seeing Trump's approach as strategic bluffing. Meanwhile, Russia's targeting of Ukraine's energy infrastructure continues, with strikes impacting multiple regions as winter approaches.

 

Concurrently, Ukraine's counteroffensive efforts in Zaporizhzhia and Donetsk are showing progress. Zelenskyy has called for stricter sanctions on Russian oil buyers, asserting their role in financing the conflict. Recent talks with Trump have focused on enhancing Ukraine’s military capabilities and securing the energy sector.

 

 

Key Takeaways

• Moscow is alarmed at Trump's threat of sending Tomahawks to Ukraine.
• Discussions between the US and Ukraine on missile supplies are ongoing.
• Ukraine's counteroffensive and energy infrastructure face continued challenges.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Guardian 2025-10-12

 

 

 

A few dozen Tomahawks dribbled in are not going to be the Wunderwaffe it's being made out to be. I've said before and I'll say again the money this will cost should be going on drones. Russia does have the capability to intersept Tomahawks with the S-400 for example which is a very capable system and considered to be one of the world's best. Hundreds or thousands of drones would be a different matter. 

I Will believe the tomahawks when I see them it would be nice for Ukraine to have a longer reach to indirect Russias military industrial complex.

Until Putin reminds carrot top he has kompromat, then these Tonahawks will evaporate.

The Ukraine, equipped properly, will probably be able to overrun Russian defenses and overthrow the criminal Putin regime within a week. That would give Trump not only access to the Ukraine's natural resources, but also to Russia's.

 

Let's go paper tiger hunting! 

Extrem concerns sounds good. Maybe the first step to a ceasefire 

21 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Until Putin reminds carrot top he has kompromat, then these Tonahawks will evaporate.

I’m not so sure it’s a kompmorat I really don’t think he cares,I think he needs help trying to turn our country into something resembling what Putin has.anyway I doubt the Ukrainians will see any.

22 hours ago, dinsdale said:

A few dozen Tomahawks dribbled in are not going to be the Wunderwaffe it's being made out to be. I've said before and I'll say again the money this will cost should be going on drones. Russia does have the capability to intersept Tomahawks with the S-400 for example which is a very capable system and considered to be one of the world's best. Hundreds or thousands of drones would be a different matter. 

they should go for it with the tomahawks ans drop a cople od the dambusters om Putins palace and residence in Moscow and that might wake him up and get him to the negioting table.

Tomahawk is old technology as far as Russia is concerned. They’ll shoot them down easily. 

2 hours ago, Caldera said:

The Ukraine, equipped properly, will probably be able to overrun Russian defenses and overthrow the criminal Putin regime within a week. That would give Trump not only access to the Ukraine's natural resources, but also to Russia's.

 

Let's go paper tiger hunting! 

By "equipped properly" I hope you are including boots on the ground because it's here that Ukraine is at it's weakest and why Russian toops continue to advance on the battlefield.

23 hours ago, dinsdale said:

A few dozen Tomahawks dribbled in are not going to be the Wunderwaffe it's being made out to be. I've said before and I'll say again the money this will cost should be going on drones. Russia does have the capability to intersept Tomahawks with the S-400 for example which is a very capable system and considered to be one of the world's best. Hundreds or thousands of drones would be a different matter. 

Ukrainians are smart enough to pop off a few Tomahawks, let the Russians fire off immediate alert AA missiles and then swarm the drones.

On 10/13/2025 at 10:49 AM, dinsdale said:

A few dozen Tomahawks dribbled in are not going to be the Wunderwaffe it's being made out to be. I've said before and I'll say again the money this will cost should be going on drones. Russia does have the capability to intersept Tomahawks with the S-400 for example which is a very capable system and considered to be one of the world's best. Hundreds or thousands of drones would be a different matter. 

But does Russia have enough S-400s to protect all vulnerable potential targets deep into Russian territory?  I think we both know the answer.

2 minutes ago, animalmagic said:

Ukrainians are smart enough to pop off a few Tomahawks, let the Russians fire off immediate alert AA missiles and then swarm the drones.

Need the drones first. As it is it's estimated that Russia is building 1000+ drones a day. 

Just now, dinsdale said:

Need the drones first. As it is it's estimated that Russia is building 1000+ drones a day. 

It's already been suggested that drone factories would be a great target for a Tomahawk.  Eliminate the root cause.

3 minutes ago, IsaanT said:

But does Russia have enough S-400s to protect all vulnerable potential targets deep into Russian territory?  I think we both know the answer.

AI overview

The exact number of S-400 missile systems in Russia is not publicly confirmed, but estimates suggest Russia had around 50-56 battalions deployed before the war in Ukraine, with potential production increasing since. However, Ukraine has claimed to destroy multiple S-400 systems, making the current operational number uncertain due to these losses and the difficulty in confirming specific details of Russia's production and inventory.  

 

•  

Goddamn. 

 

I'm amazed at the number of posters here who would gladly risk WW3 and nuclear Armageddon to get back a few hundred (thousand?)  sq km to a thoroughly corrupt regime that even the residents voted against.  Twice.

 

The only way that Crimea and Donbass are going back is NATO boots on the ground, and the risk then is world destruction.  Sucks, I know.  But that's the reality on the ground.

 

Better to call an end where the lines are today and spend the money rebuilding what Ukraine has left.   Then threaten WW3 and Armageddon if Russia tries it on again.  Otherwise, we all may wake up dead one day soon.  Whether by accident, or AI software glitch, or deliberate act.  Is it worth that risk?

 

28 minutes ago, impulse said:

Goddamn. 

 

I'm amazed at the number of posters here who would gladly risk WW3 and nuclear Armageddon to get back a few hundred (thousand?)  sq km to a thoroughly corrupt regime that even the residents voted against.  Twice.

 

The only way that Crimea and Donbass are going back is NATO boots on the ground, and the risk then is world destruction.  Sucks, I know.  But that's the reality on the ground.

 

Better to call an end where the lines are today and spend the money rebuilding what Ukraine has left.   Then threaten WW3 and Armageddon if Russia tries it on again.  Otherwise, we all may wake up dead one day soon.  Whether by accident, or AI software glitch, or deliberate act.  Is it worth that risk?

 

And condone Putin's invasion by allowing him to keep his ill-gotten spoils?  Putin has inaccurately re-written Russian history in his own mind and is now trying to execute his inaccurate vision.  He won't stop at Ukraine but the west has woken up and he's not going to be allowed to go any further.

As to nuclear threats, Russia's playbook is to make exaggerated ominous threats every time they think they might be losing the initiative.  The almost-permanently drunk ex-PM and useful idiot Medvedev is the worst for this, followed by Dmitri Petrov but both are only spokemen.  Also, who would really feel sure that either:

a) the Soviet nuclear deterrent still works reliably?
b) the command chain beneath Putin would allow a launch to happen even if Putin directed it?  They would know they would be signing their own death warrants and they may pause to think.  This has already happened before, in 1962 in the Cuban Missile Crisis - a Soviet submarine captain wanted to launch a missile but he needed two other officers on board to ratify the decision and one of the other two urged calm and prevented it.
 

In September 2024, a test of the RS-28 Sarmat ICBM at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in northern Russia appears to have suffered a "catastrophic failure."  Satellite imagery from the site showed a 60-metre-wide crater and significant damage to the launch silo.  Analysts suggest the failure was likely due to a mechanical issue in the first-stage booster, causing the missile to fall back into the silo and explode.  This is reportedly the fourth successive test failure of the Sarmat, which at the very least will cause further delays in its deployment.  Just saying...

IMHO, Putin is greedy but he's not catastrophically stupid.  You're welcome to disagree.

22 minutes ago, IsaanT said:

He won't stop at Ukraine but the west has woken up and he's not going to be allowed to go any further.

Yes Moscow should be concerned. Just like the US would be concerned, to say the least, if Russia installed a few long range missiles in Venezuela. Of course it really doesn't matter for Russia will have subs sitting near east and west coasts of the US in striking distance. Why wouldn't they?

 

But I've heard your statement above many times. "He won't stop at Ukraine!" My lefty friends have been spouting that comment to me many times. I ask them if they have anything to back that statement up. I get silence in return. What about you?

It's not as easy as sending Ukraine tomahawks. They require a firing platform that Ukraine currently doesn't have. Sending both will be costly, and it might not be as effective as expected. Tomahawks can't be fired from the planes Ukraine have, like the F-16s.

 

However, Russia can't even defend their oil and gas installations today, they are going up in fire daily, so if tomahawks strike at certain facilities, they won't be stopped. 

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Goddamn. 

 

I'm amazed at the number of posters here who would gladly risk WW3 and nuclear Armageddon to get back a few hundred (thousand?)  sq km to a thoroughly corrupt regime that even the residents voted against.  Twice.

 

The only way that Crimea and Donbass are going back is NATO boots on the ground, and the risk then is world destruction.  Sucks, I know.  But that's the reality on the ground.

 

Better to call an end where the lines are today and spend the money rebuilding what Ukraine has left.   Then threaten WW3 and Armageddon if Russia tries it on again.  Otherwise, we all may wake up dead one day soon.  Whether by accident, or AI software glitch, or deliberate act.  Is it worth that risk?

 

This is not just a simple conflict between 2 neighbouring countries it's about stopping Putin from marching  on and invading  other counties like Poland and beyond. Your theory sounds simple Ukraine waves  the white flag and Russia keeps all the terrortory that it gained and everyone lives happily ever after. However does anybody think that Putin will stop there ?? He will re-group build up his arms  , planes and other military equipment  and personell and have another go. He has to to be stopped in his tracks and taught a lesson and Trump already flagged yesterday that he will support NATO with the ammo that they need  after giving putey one more chance to quit or it will be on and he's been very patient with him so far .It's only a mater of time and  now that the Middle East is sorted out trump wants to  add another war onto his stopped list.

1 hour ago, 300sd said:

Yes Moscow should be concerned. Just like the US would be concerned, to say the least, if Russia installed a few long range missiles in Venezuela. Of course it really doesn't matter for Russia will have subs sitting near east and west coasts of the US in striking distance. Why wouldn't they?

 

But I've heard your statement above many times. "He won't stop at Ukraine!" My lefty friends have been spouting that comment to me many times. I ask them if they have anything to back that statement up. I get silence in return. What about you?

Yeah, appeasement was a winning solution to stop Hitler! 

1 hour ago, 300sd said:

But I've heard your statement above many times. "He won't stop at Ukraine!" My lefty friends have been spouting that comment to me many times. I ask them if they have anything to back that statement up. I get silence in return. What about you?

I'm baffled at how support for the country memorably described by President Reagan as an 'evil empire' has morphed from the likes of useful idiots on the far left to many so-called conservatives on the right. I have many shouting matches with my Woke sisters, especially on Gaza, but agree with them completely on the issue of Putin's evil, and the need for Western support for Ukraine. Real conservatives such as Reagan and Thatcher would have been appalled by America's weak support of Ukraine.

That said, and it really sticks in my craw, the best solution could be to leave Russia with the territory they currently hold, together with a solemn promise for Ukraine to never join NATO, combined with arming whats left of Ukraine to the teeth.

I hope they will send on straight up Cuntin’s a.s! 

4 hours ago, 300sd said:

Yes Moscow should be concerned. Just like the US would be concerned, to say the least, if Russia installed a few long range missiles in Venezuela. Of course it really doesn't matter for Russia will have subs sitting near east and west coasts of the US in striking distance. Why wouldn't they?

 

But I've heard your statement above many times. "He won't stop at Ukraine!" My lefty friends have been spouting that comment to me many times. I ask them if they have anything to back that statement up. I get silence in return. What about you?

I submit what Putin himself has said, as he tries to reincarnate the golden age of Russian power.  Here is a timeline of key dates and statements that demonstrate this objective:

2005: The "Geopolitical Catastrophe" Speech

• Date: April 25, 2005, during his annual address to the Federal Assembly.

• Statement: Putin famously called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century."

• Context: While this quote is often seen as a desire to rebuild the USSR, his full statement highlights his true grievance. He lamented the millions of ethnic Russians who suddenly found themselves "outside Russian territory" and the loss of Russia's power and influence. He was not mourning communism, but the lost empire. This speech is a foundational moment for his later rhetoric.

2007: The Munich Security Conference Speech

• Date: February 10, 2007.

• Statement: In a landmark speech, Putin openly criticised the United States and NATO for creating a "unipolar world" and expanding eastward, calling it a serious provocation. He accused the West of ignoring Russia's interests and attempting to impose its will on the world.

• Context: This is widely considered the moment Putin publicly declared Russia's opposition to the post-Cold War world order and signalled his intent to reassert Russia as a major world power. He stated that Russia would not be a passive player and would defend its sovereignty and "near abroad" (former Soviet states).

   

2021: "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" Essay

• Date: July 12, 2021.

• Statement: In this lengthy, detailed essay, Putin argued that Russians and Ukrainians are "one people" and that modern Ukraine occupies historically Russian lands. He stated that the "wall that has emerged... is our great common misfortune and tragedy."

• Context: The essay was published just months before Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It is seen by many analysts as a direct ideological justification for the coming war. By claiming a shared historical heritage and destiny, he was laying the groundwork for a revanchist policy and questioning the legitimacy of Ukraine's borders. The essay was reportedly made mandatory reading for the Russian military, underscoring its importance to the Kremlin's objectives.

   

2022: The Invasion Justification Speech

• Date: February 24, 2022, just before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

• Statement: Putin once again lamented the breakup of the Soviet Union but reached back even further. He stated that the processes which led to Russia losing territory a century ago must be reversed and that modern Ukraine was "wholly and fully created by Bolshevik, communist Russia," a "catastrophic mistake" that he would correct. He also called the entire Western bloc an "empire of lies."

• Context: This speech removed all doubt that Putin was willing to act on his rhetoric. He explicitly tied the invasion to his historical claims about the Russian Empire and accused the West of creating an "anti-Russia" on historically Russian lands.

 

You left out the 2014 Maiden coup  and shelling of the Donbas region by Banderite Nazis...just a small omission.

1 hour ago, johng said:

You left out the 2014 Maiden coup  and shelling of the Donbas region by Banderite Nazis...just a small omission.

My list was things that Putin has said to support the suggestion that he will not stop at Ukraine, not what actions his armed forces have taken.

9 hours ago, dinsdale said:

AI overview

The exact number of S-400 missile systems in Russia is not publicly confirmed, but estimates suggest Russia had around 50-56 battalions deployed before the war in Ukraine, with potential production increasing since. However, Ukraine has claimed to destroy multiple S-400 systems, making the current operational number uncertain due to these losses and the difficulty in confirming specific details of Russia's production and inventory.  

 

•  

My research tells me that since the beginning of August 2025, at least 16 of Russia's 38 oil refineries have been struck by Ukrainian drones.  Strikes have also targeted other parts of the energy infrastructure, including the "Druzhba" oil pipeline, which has reportedly been hit eight times and oil depots and storage facilities, such as the one in Matveev Kurgan, Rostov Oblast.  Gas processing plants, including the Gazprom plant in Astrakhan, have also been hit.

We all know that oil exports are crucial to Russia's economy, and its war fund.  This evidence suggests that Russia was unable to defend these key strategic sites so, even without Tomahawks, Russia can be impacted.  Slava Ukraini.