As the Russia-Ukraine war grinds on, U.S. President Donald Trump has intensified his rhetoric, signalling a potential shift in strategy to pressure Russia into ending the conflict. On August 21, 2025, Trump posted on Truth Social, stating, "It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invaders country. It's like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense. There is no chance of winning!" This statement, coupled with his suggestion that Ukraine should "play offense," has sparked speculation about the deployment of long-range cruise missiles capable of striking deep into Russian territory, including Moscow. This discussion explores Trump's evolving approach, the implications of his proposed "change of tactics," and the potential risks and rewards of escalating military support for Ukraine.
Trump's initial approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict was framed as one of mediation. Following his inauguration in January 2025, he pushed for peace talks, meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on August 15 and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, alongside European leaders on August 18. These summits were intended to pave the way for a Putin-Zelenskyy meeting to negotiate a ceasefire. However, Russia's continued aerial assaults, including a massive strike on August 21 involving 574 drones and 40 missiles targeting Ukrainian cities, have frustrated Trump's diplomatic efforts.
In response, Trump has shifted from diplomacy to a more confrontational stance. His August 21 Truth Social post criticised the Biden administration's policy of limiting Ukraine to defensive actions, arguing that Ukraine cannot win without striking Russian soil. This rhetoric aligns with reports that Trump has discussed providing Ukraine with long-range weapons, such as Tomahawk cruise missiles, capable of hitting Moscow or St. Petersburg. Although sources indicate that Tomahawks are currently "off the delivery list," their consideration signals a willingness to escalate military support to force Putin to the negotiating table.
The potential deployment of long-range cruise missiles, such as the AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) or Tomahawks, represents a significant escalation. Ukraine has developed its own long-range capabilities, notably the Flamingo cruise missile, which boasts a 2,000-mile range and could reach deep into Russia. However, Trump's discussions with Zelenskyy about U.S.-supplied missiles, including the possibility of using 18 ATACMS missiles at their full 300-kilometre range, suggest a reliance on Western technology to bolster Ukraine's offensive capabilities.
These missiles could target Russian military bases, airfields, and supply depots, disrupting Moscow's war machine. Trump reportedly believes that such strikes would pressure Putin by demonstrating the vulnerability of Russian territory. This aligns with his broader strategy of using military leverage to compel negotiations, especially after perceiving Putin's continued attacks as a sign of disrespect.
However, Trump has been inconsistent on this front. On July 15, he publicly ruled out supplying long-range missiles like JASSMs, stating, "No, we're not looking to do that," and cautioned Zelenskyy against targeting Moscow. This contradiction reflects the delicate balance Trump is navigating: projecting strength to pressure Russia, while avoiding actions that could provoke a nuclear response or alienate domestic and international audiences wary of escalation.
The deployment of long-range missiles capable of striking Moscow carries significant risks. Russia has repeatedly warned that such actions would cross a "red line," potentially triggering a nuclear response. The Biden administration's cautious approach, initially limiting ATACMS use to Russian-controlled areas near Ukraine's border, was driven by these concerns. Western allies, including Germany, have hesitated to supply systems like the Taurus missile due to fears of escalation, a stance that has limited Ukraine's ability to conduct deep strikes.
Moreover, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has dismissed Trump's threats, and Putin has shown no willingness to negotiate under pressure, viewing his territorial gains in Ukraine as non-negotiable. The Kremlin's insistence on having a veto over Ukraine's post-war security guarantees further complicates negotiations, suggesting that military escalation may not yield the diplomatic breakthrough Trump seeks.
Beyond military options, Trump's "change of tactics" could involve economic measures. On July 29, he threatened 100 percent tariffs on Russia and its trading partners, including China and India, if Putin did not end the war within 10 days. Although he postponed these sanctions after the Alaska summit, the threat remains a tool to pressure Moscow. However, Russia's economy has proven resilient to Western sanctions, and allies like China have signalled opposition to further economic coercion.
Diplomatically, Trump's push for a Putin-Zelenskyy summit appears stalled. Lavrov has stated that any meeting requires extensive preparation, and Zelenskyy has accused Russia of undermining talks with continued attacks. Trump's recent decision to step back from arranging a bilateral meeting, suggests a recognition that forcing negotiations may be futile without Russian buy-in.
Some analysts argue that advanced Western weapons, such as F-35 fighters or long-range missiles, could shift the battlefield dynamics in Ukraine's favour. Ukraine's Flamingo missile and other indigenous systems demonstrate its growing capacity for deep strikes, but Western support remains critical. However, the risk of nuclear escalation has historically restrained the U.S. and its allies from providing Ukraine with the most advanced systems in large quantities. Trump's willingness to entertain such options, even rhetorically, marks a departure from this caution, but also underscores the high stakes involved.
Trump's assertion that Ukraine cannot win without attacking Russian territory, reflects a strategic belief that offensive operations are necessary to weaken Moscow's resolve. Yet, the limited supply of Western weapons has so far allowed Russia to maintain its territorial gains, emboldening Putin. Whether Trump's "change of tactics" will involve a significant increase in military aid or a return to economic pressure remains unclear, as he has not publicly detailed his plans.
President Trump's escalating rhetoric and hints at deploying long-range cruise missiles signal a bold but risky shift in U.S. policy toward the Russia-Ukraine war. His frustration with stalled peace talks and Russia's unrelenting attacks has led to a more confrontational approach, emphasising Ukraine's need to "play offense." While long-range missiles could enhance Ukraine's ability to strike Russian targets, the threat of nuclear escalation and diplomatic gridlock pose significant challenges. Trump's undefined "change of tactics" leaves open the possibility of military, economic, or diplomatic manoeuvres which are likely to move the intensity of the conflict to the next level, a dangerous one.
https://rmx.news/article/is-trump-preparing-to-escalate-the-war-in-ukraine-he-warns-of-a-change-of-tactics-if-putin-does-not-accept-peace/