This is John Batchel, a conversation with colleague John Hardy of the Foundation for Defense of Democracy about the Tomahawk missile, much discussed as whether the U.S. should or should not supply it to Keefe to attack Russian energy nodes and other military targets.

John makes the case here that it would extend the range.

It is not a magic weapon, however.

Here's John Hardy to explain.

Tomahawks to Ukraine, question mark.

Not yet.

It would, I think, add range on top of Ukraine's existing Western provided missiles. It packs more punched

than Ukraine's Ukrainian-made drones, and it's a more capable, kind of harder to shoot down

missile than what Ukraine is currently making at that kind of same range class. But, you know,

I don't think it's kind of like a wonder weapon that's going to turn the

title of the war.

I think it'd be a useful addition to Ukraine's growing arsenal of long-range strike

capabilities.

You know, I've been generally supportive of, you know, saying that the Trump administration

should do all can to enhance it to enhance Ukraine's long-range strike capabilities. Tomahawk could be, you know, saying the Trump administration should do all it can to enhance Ukraine's long range strike capabilities.

Tomahawk could be, you know, part of that solution.

There are also practical considerations and stockpile considerations for the United States.

And I think ultimately, Tomahawk is not the only way that, you know, we can do this, accomplish this mission.

I mentioned ERAM, there are other missiles.