Trump arms Ukraine. Russia doesn't care

Russia Today

3 days ago

On Monday, July 14, US President Donald Trump announced that he had decided to supply Patriot missile systems to Kiev, with the first deliveries expected in the coming days.
The key element of this move lies not just in the type of weapons, but in the logistics behind them. While the deliveries will be formally carried out by Washington, the funding will come from NATO allies. The first batteries will be transferred from Germany, which will later be compensated by new shipments from the United States. In essence, a new mechanism is taking shape: American weapons, paid for with European money.
But what does this actually mean in practical terms? Is this a major escalation, a political gesture, or simply a reshuffling of existing commitments? And more importantly, how will this affect the battlefield itself?
According to Trump, Ukraine will receive 17 Patriot systems – a statement that immediately raises questions. Most importantly, it's unclear exactly what the administration considers a 'system.' If he meant 17 launchers, that would translate into just three or four full batteries, since each battery includes a radar, command post, and between four and eight launchers. This would not represent a dramatic escalation, but rather allow the Ukrainian Armed Forces to replenish and rotate previously supplied batteries.
A more ambitious interpretation would assume that Trump meant 17 full batteries. That would be the single largest delivery of air defense systems to Ukraine to date – several times more than what the country currently fields. While the US has the industrial capacity and inventory to provide this quantity, such a generous transfer would be uncharacteristic of Trump's approach. His goal is to make a visible impact, not to set records. The more plausible scenario is that this is a European-funded replacement for earlier systems that have been damaged or expended.
In parallel with the Patriot announcement, details began to emerge about long-range missiles. According to The Washington Post, the Trump administration is considering removing all restrictions on Ukraine's use of ATACMS missiles to strike targets deep inside Russian territory.
It's worth clarifying that Ukraine already possesses such missiles. Since 2023, its forces have deployed ATACMS variants with a range of up to 190 km, and since spring of 2024, longer-range versions capable of reaching 300 km. The change lies not in the hardware itself, but in the potential shift in how it can be used. Up until now, Washington has forbidden Kiev from using these weapons to strike internationally recognized Russian territory. According to American press reports, those limits may now be dropped.
While this move would entail risks, it doesn't represent a strategic game-changer. Russia's layered air defense network, including the S-300, S-400, and S-500 systems, was designed with threats like ATACMS in mind. While a 100% interception rate is unrealistic, operational experience shows a high level of effectiveness. The threat is real, but hardly decisive.
As weapons deliveries ramp up, discussion has turned to heavier strike assets. Military Watch Magazine reported that its sources say the Trump administration is exploring the possibility of transferring US air-launched cruise missiles – specifically JASSM models – to Ukraine, primarily for use with F-16 fighters already in Kiev's possession.
The JASSM is a stealthy cruise missile designed to strike heavily defended targets. Early variants have a range of up to 340 km, while the extended-range JASSM-ER versions are capable of flying 740–1000 km. With a 450 kg warhead and low observability, these missiles pose a serious threat – particularly if used against major administrative and industrial centers. In theory, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, and other cities could fall within range.
Reports also suggest that the administration may be reviewing the possibility of providing Tomahawk cruise missiles – most likely through the mobile Typhon launch systems, which Ukraine formally requested back in 2024. These subsonic, terrain-hugging missiles have a range of up to 2,000 km and have proven effective in US strikes against targets in Iran and Syria in recent years.
Notably, Ukraine isn't the only country showing interest in such systems. Germany has also expressed a desire to acquire Typhon complexes as part of its long-term deterrence strategy. While the theoretical transfer of Tomahawks to Kiev cannot be ruled out, as with the JASSM, such a move would mark a significant policy shift. It would be, by any standard, a revolutionary step – and it is doubtful that President Trump is genuinely inclined to take it. For now, all indications are that discussions remain preliminary and behind closed doors.
Should these proposals move forward, Russia's military will respond by adjusting its air defense posture. Denser deployments of surface-to-air systems around industrial centers, capitals, and the front line will be required. Air-based assets may be added to the mix. The threat is being monitored, but it will not go unanswered.
Russia not only possesses a sophisticated anti-missile defense network but also extensive combat experience intercepting a wide range of Western weapons. Engagements with Storm Shadow, SCALP EG, and ATACMS missiles have already shown that even complex threats can be effectively countered. While no system offers full immunity, and some missiles may slip through, the idea of 'wonder weapons' shifting the tide of the conflict is a myth.
The success of the special military operation does not depend on technological supremacy alone. It is rooted in the integrated use of diverse forces, sustained strategic initiative, and resilience under pressure. No cruise missile – however advanced – can break that foundation.