On July 4, during a private phone call,Donald Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy whether Ukraine could strike Moscow and St. Petersburg—if provided with U.S. long‑range weapons, according to people briefed on the call (Financial Times). This marked a notable policy shift from Trump’s earlier stance, which favored preventing escalation and ending foreign entanglements.
Context & Motivation
The request for striking Russian cities came after Trump told Zelenskyy he’d had a “bad” call with Vladimir Putin, hinting at frustration with Putin’s position (Financial Times).
Zelenskyy allegedly responded that Ukraine could indeed hit Moscow if supplied with the appropriate long-range missiles, such as Tomahawks or ATACMS (Financial Times).
Trump is reportedly exploring ways to circumvent congressional restrictions on military aid by redirecting weapons through European allies (Financial Times).
Weapons & Strategic Shift
Trump’s strategy appears to reflect a broader shift toward “escalate to de‑escalate”—using military pressure to force negotiation (The Washington Post).
Discussions involved long-range systems like Tomahawk cruise missiles and ATACMS, potentially allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russia (Financial Times).
A proposed $10 billion NATO arms package, including Patriot air defenses, may soon be rolled out (The Washington Post).
Broader Implications
NATO and U.S. allies are reportedly considering deepening support, reviving long-range weapons provisions (The Guardian).
Ukraine has already conducted deep-drone strikes, using domestically-made drones—an independent capability in the absence of U.S. long-range systems (Financial Times).
Russia responded with harsh rhetoric, warning of kicking off nuclear escalation, and revising its nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for first use (Financial Times).
Risk Factors
Encouraging attacks on Moscow is an escalatory move: analysts warn it risks widening the war, with unpredictable Russian responses, including nuclear threats .
Domestically, Congress has paused direct military aid to Ukraine. Trump’s redirect‑via‑Europe strategy highlights tension between the White House and Congress .
European capitals appear to be in step with the shift, but details remain unclear—the type of weapons and logistics path are still under negotiation .
Why It Matters
This moment reflects a dramatic departure in U.S. foreign policy under Trump—from diplomatic de-escalation to a riskier form of military pressure.
Granting Ukraine long-range strike capabilities could reshape the battlefield, forcing Moscow to rethink its strategy—but could also provoke further retaliation.
The situation heightens tensions within NATO, U.S. domestic politics, and between Moscow and Kyiv, with global consequences if escalation leads to broader conflict.
Reuters – Independent confirmation with further context (ABC News)
The Guardian – NATO reaction and policy shift analysis (The Guardian)
Washington Post – Presidential “escalate to de‑escalate” strategy (The Washington Post)
Business Insider – On U.S. aid pause and weapons implications (Business Insider)
This story is still unfolding. For now, the key facts stand: Trump asked Zelenskyy about hitting Moscow, Zelenskyy said Ukraine could if armed, and the U.S. and NATO are actively discussing how to enable it—despite congressional obstacles. The ramifications could reshape the trajectory of the Ukraine conflict and broader geopolitical dynamics.
