美國總統川普近日在接受採訪時表示，對於是否批准向烏克蘭提供「戰斧」（Tomahawk）巡弋導彈，他希望先了解烏克蘭的使用計畫。他強調自己「不想讓俄烏衝突進一步升級」，但同時又透露，「基本上已經做出了決定」。這番曖昧的表態，立即在美國國內與歐洲盟國之間引發熱議，被視為華府正考慮跨出一條極具爭議的軍援界線。

戰斧導彈是美國海、空軍長年使用的遠程精準打擊武器，射程最遠可達約2500公里，能以極低高度飛行、精確命中目標。若烏克蘭獲得這類武器，將首次具備打擊俄羅斯本土深處，包括莫斯科在內的重要軍事與能源設施的能力。根據美國國會研究處資料，早期型的戰斧導彈甚至可搭載核彈頭，雖然目前實際提供的多為常規版本，但其潛在象徵與威懾意涵極其敏感。

對此，克里姆林宮發言人佩斯科夫強烈回應，形容這是「極度危險的時刻」。他指出，戰斧導彈議題涉及核威脅與誤判風險，因為部分型號具有核載具潛能。他警告說：「想像一下，一枚射程兩千多公里的導彈正飛向俄羅斯，而我們無法確定它是否攜帶核彈頭，俄羅斯應該如何反應？」佩斯科夫同時提醒，俄方情報部門過去曾懷疑烏克蘭研發「髒彈」，如今若再加入具核潛能的導彈，風險將倍增。

俄羅斯總統普京更在月初發出警告，稱戰斧導彈若落入烏克蘭手中，幾乎不可能在沒有美軍直接參與的情況下操作。若美方決定供應這種武器，將意味著衝突「進入全新的實質性升級階段」。他認為，美國的介入已不再只是「援助」，而是實際參戰的一種形式。

另一方面，美國與西方情報圈也被曝出，近月來已在秘密協助烏克蘭進行遠程攻擊任務。據《華爾街日報》和《路透社》報導，美方情報機構在任務規劃中為烏軍提供支持，包括選擇打擊目標、規劃飛行路線、設定飛行高度與打擊時機，協助烏克蘭的「一次性攻擊無人機」突破俄羅斯的防空系統。這種行動雖未直接介入發射行動，但在事實上，已讓烏方具備了更高層級的遠程作戰能力。

美俄雙方在這一問題上立場幾乎無法調和。華府試圖在「支持盟友」與「避免核對抗」之間尋求平衡，因此川普提出「先了解使用方式」的條件化態度，意圖維持某種可控範圍。然而從莫斯科角度看，任何長程導彈供應都是對俄羅斯國土安全的直接威脅，無論其是否掛載核彈頭。俄方警告，美國若跨出這一步，俄軍將被迫採取報復性軍事行動。

這場爭議反映出，俄烏戰爭已從傳統戰場擴展為一場涉及核威懾、情報戰與遠程打擊的新階段。從歐洲戰後歷史來看，這是自1962年古巴導彈危機以來，俄羅斯與西方世界最接近全面對抗的時刻。戰斧導彈是否最終提供，將不僅影響烏克蘭的戰場局勢，更可能改寫整個國際安全架構。

總結而言，川普的「戰斧導彈決策」已成為一場軍事與外交的雙重博弈。美國若提供，將賦予烏克蘭前所未有的攻擊能力，但同時也冒著將衝突推向不可逆轉深淵的風險；若拒絕，則可能被視為對俄羅斯的讓步。這場爭論的每一步，都牽動著全球對「核邊緣外交」的記憶與恐懼。

U.S. President Donald Trump said earlier this week that before approving the delivery of Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, he wants to “first understand how Kyiv plans to use them,” stressing that he “doesn’t want the Russia-Ukraine conflict to escalate any further.” However, he also added that he has “basically made up his mind.” Trump’s remarks immediately sparked intense debate in Washington and among NATO allies, as the U.S. appears to be weighing whether to cross one of the most sensitive military aid thresholds since the war began.

The Tomahawk missile, long used by the U.S. Navy and Air Force, is a long-range precision weapon capable of striking targets up to 2,500 kilometers away while flying at very low altitudes. If supplied to Ukraine, it would grant Kyiv the ability to strike deep within Russian territory — even potentially reaching Moscow or major strategic installations. According to the U.S. Congressional Research Service, earlier versions of the Tomahawk were designed to carry nuclear warheads, although most current models are equipped with conventional payloads. Nonetheless, its nuclear-capable legacy makes it one of the most politically and strategically sensitive weapons in the U.S. arsenal.

The Kremlin reacted sharply. Spokesman Dmitry Peskov called it “an extremely dangerous moment,” warning that the Tomahawk issue is “highly sensitive.” He pointed out that some variants historically had the ability to carry nuclear warheads, creating immense uncertainty in a potential conflict. “Imagine a long-range missile being launched and in flight, and we know it could potentially carry a nuclear warhead — what is Russia supposed to think? How should we respond?” Peskov said. He also claimed that Russian intelligence once suspected Ukraine of developing a so-called “dirty bomb,” arguing that introducing a missile with nuclear potential would heighten the risks dramatically.

Russian President Vladimir Putin issued an even more explicit warning earlier this month, insisting that Tomahawk missiles “cannot be operated without direct U.S. involvement.” He stated that if Washington delivers such weapons to Kyiv, it would mark “a fundamentally new and substantive stage of escalation” in the conflict. In his view, American assistance would no longer constitute indirect support, but direct participation in the war.

Meanwhile, reports from The Wall Street Journal and Reuters revealed that U.S. intelligence agencies have already been quietly helping Ukraine conduct long-range strike missions. The support allegedly includes assistance in target selection, flight-path design, altitude calculation, timing, and mission decision-making — all to help Ukraine’s long-range “one-way attack drones” evade Russian air defenses. Although the U.S. has not taken part in any launches directly, this level of cooperation has effectively enhanced Ukraine’s capacity to strike deep into Russian territory.

Washington’s position remains deeply conflicted. On one hand, supplying Tomahawks could allow Ukraine to cripple Russian logistics and energy infrastructure, shifting battlefield momentum. On the other, it risks expanding the geographical scope of the war and increasing the chances of miscalculation or unintended escalation. Trump’s conditional approach — insisting on understanding Ukraine’s intended use before final approval — reflects Washington’s attempt to maintain control while walking a fine line between deterrence and provocation.

From Moscow’s perspective, however, any long-range missile transfer is a direct threat to Russian national security, regardless of whether the warhead is nuclear or conventional. Russian officials have warned that if the U.S. crosses this line, Russia will be “forced to take retaliatory military action.”

The broader implications extend far beyond the battlefield. The Russia-Ukraine war has already evolved into a confrontation involving intelligence operations, long-range precision warfare, and nuclear deterrence — marking the most dangerous standoff between Russia and the West since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. The Tomahawk decision could redefine not only Ukraine’s military capabilities but also the architecture of global security.

In summary, Trump’s deliberation over supplying Tomahawk missiles has become a dual contest of military strategy and diplomatic restraint. Approving the transfer would give Ukraine unprecedented offensive reach but risks pushing the conflict toward an uncontrollable escalation; withholding it might be seen as a concession to Moscow. Every move in this debate carries echoes of Cold War brinkmanship — a reminder that the line between deterrence and disaster has once again grown perilously thin.