‘The mighty Tomahawk missile brought down Saddam and Gadaffi. It can bring down Putin too’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/17/tomahawk-missile-putin-russia-trump-peace-ukraine-air-power/

by TheTelegraph

18 comments

  1. ***The Telegraph’s Hamish de Bretton-Gordon reports:***

    Never in the field of modern warfare has a single tactical weapon had the strategic psychological and physical game-changing impact that [the Tomahawk cruise missile delivers](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/02/tomahawk-missiles-change-ukraine-war-moscow-in-range/). This was the weapon that took down Saddam Hussein’s air defences and then Gaddafi’s, allowing air power to destroy their armies and bring their time to an end.

    [Tomahawks in Ukrainian hands](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/09/26/zelensky-asks-trump-tomahawk-missiles-private-meeting/) would be a step change. If the Ukrainians could take out Putin’s vaunted S-400s they would have control of their own skies and could bring their burgeoning air power to bear on Putin’s battered army. These are the tactics that smashed the Iraqi and Libyan armies with almost no loss to their Western opponents. Tomahawk in Ukrainian arsenals, I judge, could mean the end of Putin’s war – or even the end of Putin himself, as it was with Saddam and Gadaffi. *Sic semper tyrannis*.

    I’m not just going on the book specs on this weapon: I’ve seen it used at first hand and its devastating effects in Iraq and the Balkan wars. It’s not only me that knows its power, too: everyone from Putin downwards in the Kremlin is screaming at President Trump not to gift or sell it to the Ukrainians. Even Putin’s poodle, Belarusian leader Lukashenko, is threatening nuclear war if Tomahawks are deployed to Ukraine. This rather illustrates the idiocy of the Russian and its allies position.

    Lukashenko himself has no nuclear weapons to use, though he does play host to Russian ones. The Kremlin is more or less openly admitting that this single weapon can bring Russia to its knees. Putin knows it could blow a hole in his regime and end his time as the latter-day Tsar.

    What the Tomahawk can do that no others can, is travel at great distances through Russian air defended territory and strike almost any target. It is in a different class to most jet-powered cruise missiles as it was originally developed to carry nuclear weapons through Soviet air defences and it has been in service – continually upgraded and improved – for many decades. Huge numbers of Tomahawks have been fired in anger against many different enemies, often ones equipped with Russian defences, and this experience has been fed back into the weapons of today.

    Most recently [Tomahawks were used to good effect against Iran](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/23/russia-putin-weak-air-defence-sead-iran/), another enemy with Russian equipment – and yet again the Tomahawk struck its targets without difficulty. Yes, most Tomahawks are naval weapons launched from ships and submarines, but there are land-based launchers for it that the Ukrainians could use without difficulty.

    Apart from taking down the air defences themselves, Tomahawks could build on the good work the Ukrainians have already done and completely turn off the oil taps: oil is the life-blood keeping the staggering Russian economy alive. Putin no doubt realises it is the current petrol crisis in Russia that is more likely to bring about his downfall than any number of battlefield casualties. The Russian people seem impervious to the death of their soldiers – probably because Putin has tried as hard as possible to [put the burden on everyone except ethnic-Russian conscripts](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/05/russian-casualties-ukraine-putin-war-toll/). He has recruited his contract mercenaries from other ethnic groups and indeed from all over the world; he has emptied his prisons; he has rounded up men from anywhere other than Moscow and St Petersburg.

    But now that the pampered Muscovites cannot fill up their cars or fly to the coast for their holidays because of Ukrainian attacks, they seem close to insurrection and riot. Anti-Putin songs are being heard in St Petersburg and other centres of the elites, a thing unimaginable even a few weeks ago.

    **Read more**: [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/17/tomahawk-missile-putin-russia-trump-peace-ukraine-air-power/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/17/tomahawk-missile-putin-russia-trump-peace-ukraine-air-power/)

  2. Trump doesn’t have the balls or “ the cards” to do this, he’s still under the shadow of the Russian pee pee videos & cupping putins balls while Russia face fucks his stupid orange Cheeto head- historically this is going to make America the loony toons “ Marvin the Martian”

  3. How will Ukraine launch these? Aren’t they sub and frigate based? Is there a land based launcher for tomahawks? Or do we think this will be a ‘FrankenSAM’ scenario?

    Edit: there are land launchers. I thought I could not read telegraph articles then saw the text pasted in the thread….. time for coffee

  5. But they won’t, so please stop counting on trump doing something good.

  6. Libya is so much better now than under gadaffi isn’t it?

  7. “British Tomahawk” what’s stopping Britain from supplying some?

  9. No it didn’t….
    It helped. 
    It opened up air space for the US air force to much more easily move in to deal with the remaining anti air installations. 
    Before the air force could move to ground support. 
    Which then allowed the massive US invasion force to freely move within Iraq. 

    Or the rebels in Libya. 

  11. Yes, maybe, BUT …

    The US dropped 30,000 bombs in 2 weeks on Iraq, along with 160,000 troops on the grounds supported by ~ 2,000 tanks and ~ 1,800 aircrafts.

    To put that in context, Russia has fired ~ 4,600 missiles since the start of the invasion (excluding drones). In terms of missiles per week, that’s 500 times less.

    It wasn’t just the 800 Tomahawks.

  13. Donald Trump and former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had a complex relationship that involved a business deal, shifting rhetoric, and conflicting accounts. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump discussed Gaddafi frequently, criticizing the U.S. intervention that led to his overthrow in 2011, even while he had previously supported intervention. 

    The 2009 tent deal

    In 2009, Trump rented his estate in Bedford, New York, to Gaddafi’s entourage when the Libyan leader was in the U.S. for a United Nations meeting. 

    * Gaddafi wanted to erect his signature Bedouin-style tent for accommodation rather than stay in a hotel.
    * Trump’s property was leased to “Middle Eastern partners” who were not initially identified to Trump as being connected to Gaddafi.
    * Local officials and neighbors resisted the move, citing building code violations and community outrage.
    * The deal was ultimately blocked, and Gaddafi never stayed on the property.
    * Trump initially claimed he was unaware of the connection to Gaddafi, but later boasted about making a “fortune” from the failed rental, asserting he “screwed” Gaddafi by collecting a large payment without allowing him to stay. 

    Shifting positions on intervention

    Trump’s commentary on the NATO-led intervention in Libya against Gaddafi evolved significantly over time. 

    * **Support for intervention (2011):** In 2011, Trump publicly supported military intervention in Libya. In a video, he called for a “surgical” strike to “knock out Gaddafi very quickly, very surgically, and very effectively” on humanitarian grounds.
    * **Criticism of intervention (2015-2016):** As a presidential candidate, Trump reversed his position. He repeatedly claimed that the U.S. and its allies would have been “100%” better off if Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein had remained in power. He argued that their ousters created a chaotic vacuum that allowed terrorist groups like ISIS to flourish.
    * **Contradiction:** These later claims contradicted his 2011 statements supporting the intervention. When confronted with his prior stance, Trump denied supporting the “strong intervention” that ultimately occurred, claiming he was only in favor of a targeted, limited action. 

  15. Comparably Iraq and Libya are not very similar to what’s happening on Ukraine. Either country have the capability to fire back after detecting launches?

    Since their creation, and years of upgrading, Russia MIC sat on their hands? It’s laughable when people comparing to ME bull parades, to a peer v peer conflict.

    This won’t end the war but might actually tip it over a dangerous edge.

  16. Saddam was absolutely not brought down by tomahawks. Not in Desert Storm or the invasion of Iraq. These were MASSIVE combined arms missions involving tons of assets. Tomahawks were one small part of it.

    People need to stop searching and hoping for a wonder weapon. They don’t exist. They need everything they can get.

  17. the issue here is that the tomahawk missile was decades ahead of its time. It defined what a cruise missile was. BUT that was 30 years ago… Its kind of a relic of bygone era… Giving them to Ukraine is only an option because i believe it is the marines are retiring their mobile launch platforms because they hold very little strategic advantage. There are a whole generation of more technologically advanced modern competitors to the aging Tomahawk. I would even go as far as to say the storm shadow is superior in every operational fashion. Russia has spent an astronomical amount of money to develop countermeasures to defeat the tomahawk in the 40 years of operation since its design.

Comments are closed.