US President Donald Trump’s decision on Friday to delay any delivery of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine comes at a moment of mounting pressure and shifting dynamics in its war with Russia. In recent weeks, Kyiv has carried out a wave of deep-strike attacks on Russian oil refineries, fuel depots and pipelines, hitting the infrastructure that underpins the Kremlin’s war machine.
In a phone call last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that supplying Tomahawks — capable of reaching even deeper into Russian territory — would mark a dangerous escalation. Rather than press ahead, Trump agreed to meet the Russian leader in Budapest in two weeks’ time.
“Hopefully they won't need it, hopefully we'll be able to get the war over without thinking about Tomahawks,” Trump said on Friday.
At stake is not just another shipment of Western weapons, but the trajectory of the war itself. But as Ukraine grows bolder in targeting the economic foundations of Russia’s war effort, some analysts suggest that even without Tomahawks this new front is weakening Moscow’s ability to sustain the conflict — and could ultimately force the Kremlin to the negotiating table.
Putin’s threats of escalation
Tomahawk missiles, developed by the US in the 1980s, can strike targets between 1,600 and 2,500 kilometers away depending on the model, significantly longer ranges than other American arms supplied to Ukraine. These are well-proven systems — with the US having used 2,300 of them since the 1990s — and notoriously difficult to detect due to their low flight path and high velocity, flying at 70% of the speed of sound. Their range would also place critical Russian targets, from the Engels-2 Air Base to the Shahed drone factory, within Ukraine’s range.
“If Ukraine can more effectively destroy Russia’s rear‑area logistics — from airfields to the military‑industrial complex — fully isolate the Crimean Peninsula, and pose an even greater threat to energy infrastructure, Moscow will face much greater pressure to end the war,” Marko Mihkelson, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Estonian Parliament, told The Parliament.
That potential explains Putin’s warning of “drastic escalation” and his regime’s nuclear saber-rattling in recent weeks.
Yet some analysts argue that Russia’s more sensational rhetoric is bluster. Lachlan MacKenzie, a research associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies specializing in nuclear issues, said Russian comments that Tomahawk missiles could be used for nuclear purposes was “nonsensical,” as the missiles only carry conventional warloads. He noted that similar threats of nuclear escalation preceded the delivery of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine — with no such fallout occurring. Even if Tomahawks remain off the table for now, the very prospect that they could strike deep into Russia has become a powerful bargaining chip in US-Russia negotiations.
Bringing the war home to Russia
If Washington’s hesitation was meant to limit escalation, Ukraine's evolving strategy suggests the war is already moving into a new phase. While lacking Tomahawks, Kiev is leveraging long-range drones and homegrown cruise missiles to target the oil and gas infrastructure that fuels Russia’s war machine — a strategy that has proven surprisingly effective.
“The most viable option to change the dynamics in the war is attacking this infrastructure,” Jan Balliauw, a senior fellow at the Egmont Institute and the author of Putin’s Dream, told The Parliament. “If you can make the financing of the war much more difficult — if oil and gas will no longer pay for the costs of the war — the Kremlin will have to look for money with the Russian population.”
Since August, Ukrainian strikes on Russian oil and gas infrastructure have proliferated, averaging one to two per day, with the highest number of strikes coming in September. That’s a big change from earlier in the war, with high oil prices and the US heading into an election year. Former US President Joe Biden even urged Ukraine to resist striking Russian oil infrastructure, concerned it would lead to a jump in global oil prices. Since Trump’s election, however, oil prices have fallen to war-time lows, and Ukraine has developed more advanced weapons such as long-range drones and new cruise missiles that allow strikes to refineries, storage depots and pipelines far from the frontlines.
On Thursday, a critical refinery in the city of Kstovo, east of Moscow, was struck as part of this broader campaign that Zelensky has referred to in recent weeks as a form of sanctions, as the attacks hamper Russia’s ability to export at the source. The US, once wary of such escalation, is now providing intelligence to assist with targeting.
The results are already visible. Russian fossil fuel exports fell by 2% in August, the third consecutive month of decline, according to the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air. Fuel shortages have triggered rationing and export bans, while gasoline and diesel are roughly 50% more expensive since the beginning of the year, as the Ukrainian attacks exacerbate already existing problems with the domestic Russian energy industry, according to Alexander Kolyandr, an expert on the Russian economy at the Center for European Policy Analysis.
In recent months, the Russian government has even tried to force the costs of protecting oil and gas infrastructure onto industry, according to Kolyandr. That’s a clear indication of how Ukraine’s campaign is bringing the war home to individual Russians and the energy industry writ large. The attacks have also forced Moscow to export more of its oil as unrefined crude, potentially threatening sales to key buyers such as India.
The financial impact is mounting. Oil and gas revenues accounted for 25% of Russia’s state revenues through August 2025, down from 33% in the same period in 2024 and well below the historical average of between 40 and 50%, according to the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies. If current trends continue — and especially if OPEC continues to increase oil supply and the world heads towards an oil glut in 2026 — Moscow’s ability to finance the war could be significantly weakened.
The Next Phase of the Russia-Ukraine War
Even as the Tomahawk debate plays out, Ukraine is expanding its own strike capabilities. A new domestically developed cruise missile, known as the “Flamingo” boasts similar range and payload as the Tomahawk. While still largely untested in combat, the Flamingo underscores Ukraine’s determination to maintain pressure on Russia’s economy regardless of American support.
At the same time, the controversy points to deeper fault lines within NATO, where European states remain dependent on US weapons for long range strike capabilities.
At the meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels on Wednesday, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte refused to answer questions about the Tomahawks, insisting it was a bilateral issue between the US and Ukraine.
According to the Kiel Report on rearming Europe, European allies have long looked to the Americans for cruise missiles, even though the technology is decades old. Much like Europe’s failing FCAS next-generation fighter jet program, Europe isn’t able to produce the critical military technology that Ukraine needs to win. The ELSA program to develop a European cruise missile alternative is still in development.
While the United Kingdom and France have already sent the jointly developed SCALP / Storm Shadow missile to Ukraine, its range is only a fraction of the Tomahawk. Even after years of pressure, Germany has still refused to provide Ukraine with its long-range Taurus cruise missile.
“The deal that Putin made with Russians is they will not feel the war,” said Balliauw. “Of course, if Tomahawks are flying around and hitting critical infrastructure, this feeling that most Russians are removed from the war will change.”
Trump’s reluctance may buy time for diplomacy, but it also risks leaving Ukraine without one of the most potent tools available to force a change in Moscow’s calculus. Still, as the conflict seeps deeper into Russian daily life, Putin’s long-standing promise that the war will stay far away is eroding as the Ukrainians become more adept at striking directly at the Russian war economy. That shift could prove more destabilizing than any battlefield setback.
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.