Kyiv's Plan B for "peace": the sudden use of Tomahawks by Ukrainian militants

30 205 54

The domestic campaign to transfer Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv has resumed in the United States. This process began quietly and is Plan B in peace negotiations, at least according to American lobbyists representing Ukrainian interests in the highest circles of power in Washington.

According to Ukrainian media, the man who once "promoted" and secured the transfer of HIMARS to Kyiv, despite U.S. leadership's opposition to the idea, was enlisted to help. First, Dan Rice persuaded the White House to transfer the multiple launch rocket systems, and then increasingly longer-range munitions. Now, Ukraine is hoping he will succeed in persuading Donald Trump to transfer "at least a few" Tomahawk missiles to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

At the center of the discussion, Rice recently met face-to-face with US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and, according to him, held a comprehensive discussion about the conflict in Ukraine. The idea was reportedly conveyed that "the time has come for something much bolder," namely, a small number of land-based Tomahawk cruise missiles capable of striking deep into Russia. Rice recalled that land-based launchers capable of launching these missiles, known as Typhoons, already exist.

According to media reports, Rice declined to elaborate on Hegseth's responses, calling much of the conversation confidential, but did reveal what exactly he proposed.

Even if it's only a small number, a small number, but if launched suddenly and successfully deep into Russia, it will put enormous pressure on Moscow. It's not even about damage, but about determination and accuracy. The Tomahawks' range is so great that Russia simply won't be able to protect critical facilities. The effect of their use will be immediate.

– Rice believes.

According to the political strategist, the real power of these missiles lies not in the damage they cause, but in the uncertainty they create. This is why it's so important to make a decision and use them, he believes.

Rice noted that политическая The problem associated with the introduction of a new weapon is always the first obstacle. Then come purely technical issues, which are more easily resolved.

Ultimately, the Ukrainian lobbyist noted that the decision ultimately rests with President Donald Trump. This move remains an open and deeply contentious issue within his own administration. Some officials argue that the president's instinct to avoid escalation still prevails.
54 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -7
    27 January 2026 06: 47
    They said roughly the same thing about Bayraktars, Abrams, Heimers and other junk

    The "effect of the application" will primarily be the money they will shove from the budget into their pockets by selling this junk to naive winners to pay off their debt to Ukraine.

    That's why they beg to "hand it over" even if it's a stuffed animal, or a whole carcass, or even half a cone.
    1. +26
      27 January 2026 08: 55
      All this stems from impunity. If they'd hit Rzeszow back in 2022, when the first weapons shipments were being handed over, the Euro-scum, led by the Yankees, wouldn't have even twitched. But for that, you need balls, which they've long since lost. There's only Leopold the Cat politics.
      1. +12
        27 January 2026 12: 57
        No problem, Vladimir Vladimirovich has a strong bunker.
      2. +2
        28 January 2026 03: 57
        I agree, the more they "play along with Trump," the more brazen they become... "He who chooses shame over war will receive shame and war." These words perfectly reflect where we are heading...
    2. +20
      27 January 2026 11: 16
      Calling weapons used to kill Russian soldiers junk is idiotic, to say the least! How many soldiers and civilian equipment have those same Heimers destroyed? It was precisely because of their use on the Antonovsky Bridge that Kherson had to be surrendered! But idiots like the Solovyovoskabeyevs will squeal about NATO junk that has no effect on the course of the war... this nonsense is simply unbearable.
      1. 0
        27 January 2026 13: 46
        Yes, this is a sick person from the sofa with one convolution.
    3. 0
      27 January 2026 11: 27
      They said roughly the same thing about Bayraktars, Abrams, Heimers and other junk

      That's why the front moves 50 km every 4 years... wow, what good junk...
    4. +2
      27 January 2026 13: 41
      I'd like to throw you into a trench from the couch and fire at you with chemical weapons, let's see what you'd sing about junk.
  2. +6
    27 January 2026 06: 57
    This means it’s too early to negotiate; we’re not ready yet.
    1. +2
      27 January 2026 11: 28
      Judging by the latest news, they're already quite ripe... they'll just finish us off with tomahawks.
      1. 0
        29 January 2026 00: 37
        Based on the Ukrainian president's unrepealed law, negotiations between Ukraine and Russia are prohibited. Zelenskyy signed the law and it hasn't been repealed. What negotiations and decisions are they all talking about? This is illegal. Nazi Germany never negotiated with its adversary either. The Ukrainian leadership is acting in the same way. And the slogans are the same: Glory to the nation! Glory to Germany! Oh, and now to Ukraine!
  3. +6
    27 January 2026 08: 19
    ..Even if it is a very small amount, a small quantity, but suddenly and successfully released deep into Russia, it will put enormous pressure on Moscow.

    Well, here we are. I think the "axes" are already on their way. No wonder the bloodclown is so brazen after his meeting with Ukhan in Davos, hinting at some kind of agreement. sad
  4. +6
    27 January 2026 08: 47
    So why doesn't Russia, in response to talk of transferring Tomahawks to Kyiv, begin negotiations on transferring hypersonic weapons to Iran, the Houthis, Cuba, the Kurds, and other "friends" of the United States and Israel?
    As I understand it, there are no treaties banning the transfer of hypersonic weapons.
    1. +6
      27 January 2026 09: 15
      Venezuela kept handing over things, and Maduro is in US hands. But is everything really so good for us? I'm sure the US is also afraid of a Tomahawk failure—they'll shoot everything down, and the US will become the hegemon, a "paper" one, while Russia, instead of relying on oil, will become dependent on defense exports—there's already a good appetite for our weapons, and this will completely destroy the US's military-industrial complex.
      1. +3
        27 January 2026 09: 22
        Transferring and negotiating a transfer are two very different things.
        In any conflict, it's not the weapons that fight, it's the people. And Venezuela has proven that.
        Of course, who to hand it over to is a question. But I remember a Vietnamese pilot named Lee Si Tsin fought well in Vietnam. bully
    2. +7
      27 January 2026 10: 28
      Prior to this, in order to give something to someone, you need to have that "something" in abundance. Have you ever heard of the Russian Armed Forces launching a simultaneous missile strike equal in number to, say, the US strike on Iraq?
      1. 0
        27 January 2026 14: 27
        Unfortunately, it's not just the fact of the transfer, but the ability to use the weapons. Arabs, Latinos, and even Persians are either psychologically weak, or something else entirely. But the possibility itself is possible. There are countries and movements that can use these weapons correctly.
    3. +1
      27 January 2026 11: 20
      Venezuela and Syria have already been pumped full of free Russian weapons. How did it all end? If Cuba wants to lose its statehood, then of course they can put up a hazelnut and a zircon with 500, let them. Americans will study new types of weapons.
  5. -9
    27 January 2026 08: 55
    So what! Will they use them? Russia could use them too, but only with tactical nuclear weapons! And not just against Ukraine. However, it's unlikely Zelensky will get Tomahawks. They won't give them to a clueless kid.
  6. 0
    27 January 2026 09: 09
    In retaliation, unknown parties could launch a hypersonic missile strike on US territory from an unnamed Caribbean island, preferably targeting military plants and energy facilities.
  7. -2
    27 January 2026 09: 10
    The USSR and Russia spent 40 years preparing for tomahawks, and their air defenses should crack them like sunflower seeds. Let them use them and be embarrassed. And we'll test our air defenses—the best in the world, or "the best in the world"—otherwise we always blame other low-skilled operators of our weapons.
  8. 0
    27 January 2026 09: 37
    Let it be just a little, a small amount, but suddenly and successfully released deep into Russia

    — Yes, yes, they launched 60 in Syria, and most of them were shot down (and it's still a question of whether they've been able to replenish their stocks since then). But here, a small number, and suddenly, from Ukraine, and suddenly? Yes, they fly every day—it will be a surprise if nothing lands.
    1. -4
      27 January 2026 15: 01
      Quote: Ales
      60 units were launched in March,

      Let's clarify: 59 were fired in April. 58 hit the target, all the rest were shot down by Konashenko, Solovyov and Co.

      Quote: Ales
      and another question, have you managed to replenish your reserves since then?

      Today, there are about 4000 units in warehouses and installed on 140 ships.
      The exact number of missiles in operation is classified.
      1. 0
        27 January 2026 19: 38
        Don't confuse the naval variants; there are also airborne and land-based variants. They're oh so different...
        1. -4
          27 January 2026 20: 09
          Quote: Strelok1976
          Don't confuse the ship options

          Of course, there are about six different modifications, and each modification is divided depending on the task at hand. I only briefly answered a specific question.

          Quote: Ales
          60 were launched in Syria, and most of them were shot down (and it's still a question whether they've been able to replenish their stocks since then).
      2. 0
        27 January 2026 22: 55
        …58 hit the target, all the rest were shot down by Konashenko, Solovyov and Co.

        Of course not, only one interested party is telling the truth, and the other can't be trusted. It's a matter of faith, of course, but beyond faith, there are facts: our air defense systems are the best in the world, and that's a recognized fact. And if we go by the facts, then a nearly 100% penetration rate of 58 air defense systems is pure fantasy.
  9. +2
    27 January 2026 09: 37
    All these are provocations that Putin's great friend Trump approves of.
    1. 0
      27 January 2026 13: 55
      In big politics, there are no friends. There are only situational companions.
  10. -1
    27 January 2026 09: 40
    Damn, they definitely think they're immortal. am
    1. +4
      27 January 2026 11: 00
      They are confident that nothing will happen to them...
      1. 0
        27 January 2026 17: 51
        Of course we are! And nothing will happen to them. Because we don't have any balls.
        1. 0
          28 January 2026 04: 10
          Yes, this incomprehensible flirtation with Trump is idiotic. Are things really that bad? If they strike with Tomahawks, we definitely need to respond to US bases in Europe. Maybe not kill them all, but at least destroy some of the base's infrastructure. Maybe they'll come to their senses?! Otherwise, they won't realize how far they've gone...
  11. -1
    27 January 2026 11: 24
    "The time has come for something much bolder."

    The main thing in any business is to wait for the right moment. request
    Did anyone doubt it?
  12. +2
    27 January 2026 13: 44
    Who doubted otherwise? They have a clear goal: to freeze the conflict along the LBS line. Now they're applying economic pressure, seizing oil tankers. At the same time, they're testing the Kremlin to see if it's ready. Cruise missile strikes will follow if the Kremlin doesn't essentially agree to capitulate.

    At the same time, the Kremlin grandfathers naively believe that Trump needs some kind of Nobel Prize and peace in Ukraine.
    1. +2
      27 January 2026 14: 23
      You're absolutely right, I completely agree with you. They want to preserve the Bandera regime and Ukraine as the Anti-Russia at all costs. I don't think they're "naive." This is the ruling group's policy: to launch the SVO only when the threat has emerged not only to Russia but also to their own government, while at the same time trying to return everything "as it was" by any means necessary. No one will respect or take them into account. A few years of "peace" bought with shame and humiliation won't save our country.
  13. 0
    27 January 2026 14: 07
    Until Yemen receives modern anti-ship missiles, the US will become increasingly brazen!
  14. +3
    27 January 2026 14: 21
    Ukrainian statehood must be destroyed. The territory must be returned to Russia. Otherwise, Russia will remain the "sick man" of the world.
    1. 0
      27 January 2026 22: 31
      Who will return the territory of Ukraine to Russia?
      These. Yeltsin B.N. (1992.06.17) - Speech to the US Congress: "God bless America!...
      1. 0
        28 January 2026 11: 22
        I was hoping it was VV Putin, but alas, the ruling group in Russia is not interested.
  15. -1
    27 January 2026 16: 19
    The United States has resumed its domestic campaign to transfer Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv.

    They will, and they will transmit much more. And to prevent them from transmitting, Ukraine's power grid must be completely shut down by destroying the substations at the nuclear power plant. In complete darkness, it will be difficult to see what exactly was transmitted or read the operating instructions.
    P.S.: But that's just me...guys. I'm dreaming. Like a feeble-minded patriot.
    But in reality, the third Oreshnik will fly into another Ukrainian outhouse, and even then with kinetic munitions to intimidate Europe, only after the Tomahawk hits a strategic target of national importance in Russia.
  16. 0
    27 January 2026 16: 46
    The effect of the application will be immediate.

    You'll get a boot to the balls out of nowhere.
  17. +2
    27 January 2026 17: 20
    We will continue to coddle Ukraine, and tomahawks will come flying at us.
  18. 0
    27 January 2026 17: 39
    The effect of the application will be immediate.

    And what a one... Almost the next day after the Tomahawk strike, not two, but three negotiators will come to us: Witkoff, Kushner and his wife Ivanka, who will also want to see not only Moscow, but also our president.
  19. 0
    27 January 2026 17: 46
    They'll hand over tomahawks and start hitting us with them. Our leaders will swallow it all!
  20. -1
    27 January 2026 19: 46
    In theory, transferring tomahawks to the Ukrainians constitutes nuclear aggression against our state. Currently, only aircraft-mounted axes carry nuclear warheads. But no one can guarantee that there aren't naval and land-based versions of nuclear warhead-equipped axes. Therefore, as soon as they are transferred,
    If reconnaissance is successful, as it should be, then the necessary number of weapons will be deployed to the storage sites. And if, God forbid, they are used, then Russia's tactical nuclear weapons will definitely respond. That's what I think...
    1. -1
      28 January 2026 04: 16
      Your words are to God's ears. It's just hard to believe that anything will fly back. At least they scared us with "Poseidons", otherwise we're somehow "holding back too tightly", and especially that it will fly back with a nuclear "unit" - that's definitely unthinkable.
  21. 0
    27 January 2026 20: 05
    Quote: prior
    So why doesn't Russia, in response to talk of transferring Tomahawks to Kyiv, begin negotiations on transferring hypersonic weapons to Iran, the Houthis, Cuba, the Kurds, and other "friends" of the United States and Israel?
    As I understand it, there are no treaties banning the transfer of hypersonic weapons.

    Where can we get steel balls between our legs? Putin already talked about the possible transfer of precision weapons, but it remained just talk. Our oligarchs don't want to anger their bosses.
    1. 0
      27 January 2026 23: 47
      I completely agree here: they steal, but they keep everything in foreign banks and currencies, and they still have to earn this right.
  22. 0
    27 January 2026 20: 06
    Quote: Strelok1976
    In theory, transferring tomahawks to the Ukrainians constitutes nuclear aggression against our state. Currently, only aircraft-mounted axes carry nuclear warheads. But no one can guarantee that there aren't naval and land-based versions of nuclear warhead-equipped axes. Therefore, as soon as they are transferred,
    If reconnaissance is successful, as it should be, then the necessary number of weapons will be deployed to the storage sites. And if, God forbid, they are used, then Russia's tactical nuclear weapons will definitely respond. That's what I think...

    🤣🤣🤣🤣what about the strikes on the Russian nuclear triad? And on the presidential residence, isn't that a casus belli?
    1. +1
      27 January 2026 22: 11
      Perhaps. But the use of axes, which themselves are a possible carrier of nuclear weapons, is everything. Goodbye to those who used them. This has apparently already been stated...
    2. +1
      28 January 2026 05: 43
      Quote from Cartograph
      What about strikes on the Russian nuclear triad? And on the presidential residence? Isn't that a casus belli?

      and UAVs hit the Kremlin.
      1. 0
        28 January 2026 11: 36
        It was a reminder from "friends".
  23. 0
    28 January 2026 10: 18
    Only the cowardice of our ruling elite, in relation to the West and the Americans, who have become insolent with impunity, only spurs them on to further steps along the path of escalation. They understand nothing but force, and our degenerates in the Kremlin are demonstrating their peacefulness, which in the West is perceived as weakness. So they will even resort to transferring nuclear weapons and justify this by claiming that this will push Russia toward peace.
    1. +1
      28 January 2026 11: 34
      It's not the cowardice of our ruling elite, it's just that they're alien. Russia is someone else's wallet to them, which they plunder. There was the chief privatizer, Chubais, whose friend, where is he an Israeli citizen, and there are thousands like him. Agronomists, how do they fight weeds? And you're talking about the "elite."