Donald Trump Ukraine move runs risk of WW3 after missles with 'deep' within Russia

In a major development that could reshape the conflict, U.S. officials and Ukrainian leaders are now saying President Donald Trump has effectively loosened limits on Kyiv’s ability to use long-range Western missiles to strike deep inside Russia. The comments, made public at the end of September 2025, mark a significant shift in U.S. posture and have provoked sharp warnings from Moscow about the risk of a wider confrontation. 

Retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, the White House special envoy to Kyiv, told U.S. media that Trump has authorised the use of long-range capabilities to target sites within Russian territory. Kellogg framed the decision as removing sanctuaries for military targets and said commanders should be able to use the ability to hit deep where necessary. At the same time, Vice President J D Vance confirmed the administration is considering supplying Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, while stressing the president would make the final call. 

Why this matters: Tomahawk missiles have far greater reach than most of the weapons Kyiv already uses. The ship-launched Tomahawk can travel roughly 1,000 miles or more depending on variant, which means Ukrainian forces could theoretically hit high-value targets well inside Russian territory, including logistics hubs and military installations. The United States has previously limited long-range systems supplied to Ukraine so they could only be used against targets inside territory Moscow occupies. A reversal or loosening of that policy would be a major escalation in the scope of Western support. 

Moscow responded immediately and forcefully. Russian officials and hardline commentators warned that allowing Alliance missiles to strike the Russian mainland could be treated as direct involvement by NATO, with grave consequences. Former president Dmitry Medvedev warned that such use could be classified as an attack by the bloc, potentially triggering Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine and even opening the door to retaliatory strikes on Kyiv and NATO facilities. Those comments underscore how rapidly the crisis could escalate into a broader confrontation if policymakers are not careful. 

The announcement came amid a fresh surge in cross-border strikes and drone activity. Ukrainian forces have intensified attacks on military-industrial sites inside Russia, while Moscow has mounted large-scale drone and missile barrages against Ukrainian cities. Recent nights saw air defences intercept waves of aerial threats, but some strikes still caused civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. One reported incident near Moscow involved debris from a downed unmanned aircraft that struck a residential building, killing a grandmother and her young grandchild, highlighting the human cost of the intensifying campaign. 

In Russia’s border regions, Ukrainian strikes have hit facilities that support the Kremlin’s military effort. Video circulating on social media shows a HIMARS strike that reportedly knocked out a thermal power substation in Belgorod, plunging parts of the city into darkness and disrupting water systems. In Bryansk region, a precision attack set fire to the Elektrodetal plant in Karachev, a factory tied to electrical components for the defense sector, according to regional reports. Those strikes are likely part of a Ukrainian effort to disrupt supply and production nodes rather than target population centers, but they nevertheless raise the stakes for escalation. 

From a policy perspective, Washington faces a difficult choice. Supplying long-range missiles to Kyiv could blunt Russian operations far from the front lines and help Ukraine strike critical infrastructure supporting Moscow’s war machine. Supporters argue deeper strike options could pressure Russia into negotiations or limit its ability to project force. Critics warn that enabling strikes inside sovereign Russian territory risks a dangerous spiral, especially when senior Russian voices link such strikes to nuclear doctrine changes. The administration has said no final decision has been taken regarding Tomahawks, and that any transfer would be subject to presidential approval and detailed operational constraints. 

What to watch next: First, any formal U.S. decision about Tomahawk transfers or new operational rules for long-range strikes. Second, patterns of strikes inside Russia and how Moscow publicly frames its response. Third, diplomatic activity among NATO partners and European states that may be asked to coordinate or allow transport of certain munitions. Finally, how Kyiv uses any new capabilities, and whether Moscow translates battlefield losses into broader military or political escalations. Each of these elements will shape whether the situation remains an intensely dangerous but contained conflict, or whether it moves closer to a regional crisis with global repercussions. 

Bottom line: The combination of a possible U.S. policy shift, growing Ukrainian strike capacity, and hardline Russian rhetoric means the conflict has entered a new, more perilous phase. Policymakers in Washington, Kyiv, and allied capitals are weighing military effectiveness against the risk of inadvertent escalation. For the public, the immediate consequence is a higher likelihood of strikes farther from the front lines and a renewed diplomatic urgency to manage what many now describe as the most dangerous security flashpoint in Europe since World War Two.