October 5, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Putin warns Trump that sending Tomahawks to Ukraine will ditch U.S. ties with Moscow

Institute for the Study of War

Russian President Vladimir Putin continues attempts to deter the US from sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine by linking improvements in the US-Russian bilateral relationship to concessions from the United States on the war in Ukraine. Putin claimed in an interview published on October 5 that US provisions of Tomahawk missiles would “lead to the destruction” of the “emerging positive trend” in US-Russian relations – linking the prospect of improved US-Russian relations with limits on US support for Ukraine.[1] Putin is continuing to dangle the prospect of incentives that are unrelated to the war in Ukraine to extract concessions from the United States about the war in Ukraine. ISW continues to assess that Putin has been trying to facilitate US-Russian rapprochement, including by pressuring the Trump administration to engage in arms control talks, to secure Russia’s desired demands in Ukraine.[2]

Putin has been promoting various rhetorical lines to try to deter the Trump administration from providing Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles. Putin threateningly warned the United States against selling Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine on October 2, claiming that American military personnel would have to directly participate in Ukrainian Tomahawk strikes.[3] Putin also claimed that such strikes would mark a “new stage of escalation” but would not change the battlefield situation. Putin made similar arguments when the United States was considering sending Ukraine ATACMS missiles, F-16 jets, and Abrams tanks. Putin appears to be trying different approaches – from threatening worsening bilateral relations to downplaying the missiles’ usefulness – to influence US decision-making.

Russia launched its largest combined drone and missile strike against Lviv Oblast on the night of October 4 to 5 with 163 combined projectiles. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian forces launched 53 missiles, including two Kh-47M2 Kinzhal aeroballistic missiles from the airspace over Lipetsk Oblast; 42 Iskander-K/Kh-101 cruise missiles from Samara, Kursk, and Bryansk oblasts; and nine Kalibr cruise missiles from the Black Sea.[6] The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian forces also launched 496 Shahed-type, Gerbera-type, and other drones from the directions of Bryansk, Oryol, and Kursk cities; Shatalovo, Smolensk Oblast; Primorsko-Akhtarsk, Krasnodar Krai; Millerovo, Rostov Oblast; and occupied Kacha, Crimea. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Ukrainian forces downed 439 drones, one Kinzhal missile, 32 Kh-101/Iskander-K cruise missiles, and six Kalibr missiles. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that eight missiles and 57 drones struck 20 locations and that debris fell on six locations. The Ukrainian Air Force reported that six missiles did not reach their targets either because they were “lost in location” (likely referring to Ukrainian electronic warfare [EW] interference) or because Ukrainian authorities were still specifying their impact location as of 1400 local time. Lviv Oblast Military Administration Head Maksym Kozytskyi reported that Russian forces launched 140 Shahed-type drones and 23 cruise missiles against Lviv Oblast, killing four civilians, injuring eight, and damaging civilian and energy infrastructure.[7] Lviv City Mayor Andriy Sadovyi reported that Russian strikes disrupted power supplies in the city and damaged the Sparrow civilian industrial park.[8] Ukrainian officials reported that Russian strikes also killed one civilian and injured 10 others in Zaporizhzhia City and disrupted power supplies in Zaporizhzhia City and Zaporizhia, Sumy, and Chernihiv oblasts.[9]

Ukrainian Air Force Spokesperson Yuriy Ihnat stated on October 5 that Russia has modified its ballistic missiles to fly on quasi-ballistic trajectories and approach targets from multiple directions, decreasing the effectiveness of Ukraine’s Patriot air defense systems.[12] Ihnat’s October 5 statement confirms recent reporting from the Financial Times.[13]

The pro-Russian Georgian Dream party secured widespread majorities in municipal elections in Georgia on October 4, sparking mass protests that Georgian Dream officials tried to blame on Ukraine. Georgian security forces clashed with protesters in Tbilisi following local elections in which the Georgian Dream party won majorities in every municipality.[14] Kremlin officials, Georgian Dream officials, and Russian milbloggers baselessly accused foreign intelligence services of organizing the protests to launch a coup and destabilize the country.[15] Georgia’s State Security Service claimed that it confiscated weapons and explosives that protestors planned to use for sabotage missions on election day and that a Georgian representative of an unspecified Ukrainian military unit supplied the weapons.[16] ISW will continue to monitor the ongoing protests as the situation continues to develop.

Key Takeaways

  1. Russian President Vladimir Putin continues attempts to deter the US from sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine by linking improvements in the US-Russian bilateral relationship to concessions from the United States on the war in Ukraine.
  2. The Kremlin is trying to prevent the United States from providing Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine in order to retain the sanctuary that Russia enjoys in its rear.
  3. Russia launched its largest combined drone and missile strike against Lviv Oblast on the night of October 4 to 5 with 163 combined projectiles.
  4. The pro-Russian Georgian Dream party secured widespread majorities in municipal elections in Georgia on October 4, sparking mass protests that Georgian Dream officials tried to blame on Ukraine.
  5. Russia is likely leveraging its close relations with Serbia and Republika Srpska to threaten to destabilize the Balkans and undermine European cohesion.
  6. Russian forces advanced in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka tactical area.
Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.