A senior Ukrainian commander is asking Washington to provide Tomahawk cruise missiles as fighting with Russian forces intensifies across the eastern front.
Maj. Oleh Shyriaiev, who leads Ukraine’s 225th Battalion in the country’s north, said his unit needs longer-range strike options to blunt Russian pressure and shape conditions for eventual negotiations. “The main thing that we need is long-range missiles,” he said from an undisclosed location in the Sumy region.
Shyriaiev characterized the conflict as the largest war since 1945 and framed Ukraine’s fight as part of a longer struggle to secure independence from Moscow.
He said Ukrainian troops would continue to defend the country regardless of what weapons arrive, but argued that precision long-range systems would materially change the battlefield by allowing strikes on targets far behind the front.
Inside the Ukrainian request
According to Shyriaiev, Russian forces are relying on repeated infantry attacks and heavy bombardment to wear down Ukrainian positions across Donetsk, Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia. He said those tactics are inflicting losses but are also costly for Moscow, especially in urban areas that force close-quarters fighting.
He warned that attempts to seize larger hubs would involve protracted street battles and significant manpower attrition.
Shyriaiev emphasized that long-range missiles would help disrupt supply lines, command posts and rear-area staging grounds that support Russian assaults.
He said that capability could slow the tempo of attacks and give Kyiv more room to maneuver along strained sectors. While the commander pressed for Tomahawks, he added that Ukrainian forces will fight with whatever they have.
What Tomahawks would add
Tomahawks are long-range, subsonic cruise missiles designed for deep strike against high-value targets. They are typically launched from U.S. Navy ships and submarines, and have a reach of over 1,000 miles, enabling attacks far beyond the immediate battlefield.
The missiles have been used by the United States to penetrate layered air defenses and strike critical infrastructure and command nodes.
Ukraine lacks a blue-water navy, so any Tomahawk transfer would require compatible ground-based launchers and training to integrate the system.
Advocates of sending the missiles argue that disrupting rear-area logistics could undermine offensive operations and increase leverage for talks. John Hardie, deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Russia Program, said that bolstering long-range strike capacity could impose greater costs on Moscow and enhance bargaining power for Kyiv and Washington.
Trump’s shifting signals
President Donald Trump publicly entertained the idea of providing long-range missiles during an October meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House, suggesting he might consider Tomahawks if the war could not be settled.
In early November he told reporters the United States would not send Tomahawks for now, signaling caution about escalating the conflict while leaving room to revisit the issue.
Russian officials have warned against any transfer of long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine, describing it as escalatory and capable of striking deep inside Russian territory. Those warnings have accompanied broader statements about red lines and potential consequences for U.S.–Russia relations.
Sumy and Pokrovsk pressures
Shyriaiev is operating in Sumy, a border region that has been a focal point of Ukrainian counterattacks this fall. He said Russian momentum there has been slowed, but he expects continued pressure as Moscow seeks to stretch Ukrainian defenses and exploit gaps.
He pointed to the logistics hub of Pokrovsk in Donetsk as an especially hard fight, noting that any attempt to capture the city would likely be costly and time-consuming for Russia.
Recent battlefield reporting describes intense combat in and around Pokrovsk, with both sides committing additional forces and equipment. Ukrainian commanders have acknowledged difficult conditions and shortages while maintaining that Russian gains have been incremental. The broader front remains fluid, with artillery duels, drone strikes and small-unit assaults shaping daily attrition.
