Russia’s Foreign Ministry stated that the “strong momentum” resulting from the Trump-Putin meeting earlier this year has faded, cautioning that Russia should think carefully about the “consequences” of supplying Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine.
The Kremlin attributed the collapse of peace talks to what it described as European warmongers keen on prolonging the conflict until the last Ukrainian is gone, yet maintained there is still an opportunity to hold the United States accountable. “Regrettably, the momentum from Anchorage… [summit] has been largely weakened,” they remarked.
Officials pointed out that those hindering the peace process are mainly “supporters of ‘war until the last Ukrainian,'” with most being from Europe. Regarding ongoing tensions between Russia and the U.S. since Trump’s return to power, Ryabkov noted that the “cracks” in their cooperative framework have now “reached fundamental levels.”
“Americans are to blame for this,” he insisted. Just days prior, the Kremlin indicated it believed Putin was open to meeting Trump in Moscow, reflecting how rapidly the narrative from Russia is shifting.
These comments came amid rising concerns from Russia about U.S. statements regarding the potential transfer of Tomahawk land-attack missiles to Ukraine, mediated by European NATO countries. President Trump mentioned recently that he had “somewhat decided” on the matter, while Vice President J.D. Vance noted that discussions were progressing.
The Tomahawk missile boasts a range exceeding 1,000 miles, giving it the capability to strike Moscow and other major Russian cities. While Ukraine has not disclosed any nuclear capabilities, the weapon’s precision and ability to evade air defenses—despite its hefty price tag—make it a substantial threat to both Russian military bases and governmental centers.
Ukraine’s willingness to execute strategic strikes on military leadership was highlighted soon after the war began, as seen in its attack on the Russian naval headquarters in Sevastopol.
Russia has cautioned the U.S. against supplying such armaments to Ukraine, warning of serious ramifications. Ryabkov emphasized this Wednesday, stating that deploying cruise missiles would lead to a “dramatic change in the situation,” urging the U.S. to carefully assess the implications of its actions.
A Russian foreign ministry spokesperson echoed these concerns, suggesting that if Ukraine were to receive the Tomahawks, “the conflict would spiral downwards.” Maria Zakharova remarked, “We are observing the developments closely and urge extreme caution regarding this sensitive matter that could severely hinder resolution efforts in Ukraine. We hope the U.S. government hears our warning.”
This stern admonition was paired with a dismissive stance on the Tomahawk’s effectiveness, with Russian lawmakers asserting that they could easily intercept it.
guardian “We are well aware of how these missiles operate and have methods to counter them. Our experience in Syria has prepared us well. The only difficulties will be faced by those who supply and utilize these weapons. We will find ways to address those who pose challenges,” cited Andrei Kartapolov.
The Tomahawk situation is just the latest in a long-running debate over the gradual advancement of Western support to Ukraine, with discussions often centering around the provision of long-range weaponry and advanced military vehicles. These dialogues tend to evolve slowly, but they frequently lead to Ukraine obtaining what it requests.
This also comes at a time when signals from the White House indicate President Trump is noticeably frustrated with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Last month, Trump stated, “Ukraine will reclaim its territory as it is meant to, possibly even more.” He further characterized Russia’s inability to swiftly secure a victory in Ukraine as showcasing its weakness.
This comment sparked a diplomatic protestfrom Moscow.
