1. The likelihood of Ukraine getting long-range Tomahawk missiles is extremely low.The promise to supply them appears more as a diplomatic move aimed at strengthening the U.S. negotiating position with Russia. It has become clear that Washington also “has no cards” in the talks, and its arsenal of “carrots” to persuade Putin is running out. With supplies dwindling, the U.S. decided to play its “trump card” — by talking about long-range missiles.2. Tomahawks are a bargaining chip. The prospect of supplying them to Ukraine will most likely become part of negotiations with the Kremlin. And everything we know about Donald Trump suggests that, as a result of such a deal, the U.S. will most likely back away from providing them.Trump himself explicitly said that he would first discuss the matter with Putin. This is a clear signal of how seriously he actually considers supplying missiles to Ukraine. By comparison, when the decision was made to provide HIMARS, no one consulted with Putin — because the goal was to strengthen Ukraine, not the U.S. position in negotiations.Tomahawks are also a signal, not a weapon. Supplying missiles to Ukraine would be an obvious step of escalation. And Russia says this outright — from the alcohol-fueled Telegram blogger Medvedev to the Foreign Ministry. Putin himself called it “an entirely new level of escalation.”Since the Trump administration is not inclined toward risky actions, it is most likely that talks about supplying missiles are intended only to later trade a refusal to follow through for concessions from Russia. In other words, the U.S. will most likely back away from supplying them — the only question is what they will get in return.3. What might Trump agree to? For now, it’s difficult to predict what conditions would make him abandon the idea of supplying missiles to Ukraine. The ideal, but unlikely, scenario would be a ceasefire by Russia.In light of yesterday’s news, a more realistic scenario would be a temporary truce to ensure power supply at the occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant and/or limits on strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure. Whether Trump would consider such concessions sufficient remains an open question.4. The paradoxical effect of the Middle East. Strangely, the deal between Israel and Hamas only strengthens Trump’s resolve to “end” the war in Ukraine. If even Hamas — a fanatical, heavily armed group — agreed to concessions, then Putin looks like a complete outlier. His unwillingness to negotiate becomes a personal challenge for Trump, now also in the eyes of Global South countries, where Putin claims a leadership role.So after Trump’s “peacekeeping success” in the Middle East (undoubtedly his victory — neither China nor Russia had a hand in it), his desire to pressure Putin can only grow. And if the Kremlin continues trying to make the American president look foolish before the world, sooner or later Ukraine will get American long-range missiles, including Tomahawks.SourceAbout the author. Mykola Kniazhytskyi, journalist, Ukrainian MP.The editorial team does not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of blogs or columns.