Breaking the Defensive Exchange Ratio: Why Ukraine Needs Long-Range Strike Capabilities

 These missile attacks are increasing rather than decreasing. The primary defense against ballistic missile attacks remains the Patriot missile system. Russian ballistic missiles cost less than $1 million each, while Patriots cost $4 million per interceptor. This represents an unsustainable exchange ratio that is steadily depleting Western Patriot stockpiles needed to defend democracies globally. This depletion serves broader adversarial interests, as China benefits strategically every time Russia, Iran, the Houthis, or other proxies force the West to expend precious air defense interceptors.

The Patriot missile is purely a defensive weapon, originally designed to destroy enemy fighter jets. Its advanced technology proved effective against ballistic missiles as well. However, playing defense with a 4:1 negative exchange ratio constitutes a losing strategy. As President Zelensky shifts the strategic approach to "shoot the archer, not the arrow," stopping ballistic and cruise missiles at their source is essential both for saving Ukrainian lives and preserving the depth of magazine for remaining Patriots worldwide.

The Tomahawk missile represents a proven American-made cruise missile with long range and a substantial 450-pound explosive warhead. Unlike the Patriot, the Tomahawk is an offensive precision-guided weapon designed to "kill the archer" by attacking the sources of Russian missile attacks. These precision strikes could target the airfields from which Russian aircraft launch missile attacks, the command and control nodes that direct these operations, the factories producing attack drones, and other strategic infrastructure supporting Russia's campaign against Ukrainian civilians. The introduction of Tomahawk capabilities would represent a significant escalation concern for Russian leadership.

Russia has launched tens of thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles at Ukraine, primarily targeting civilian infrastructure. Ukraine has mounted limited responses due to the absence of indigenous cruise missile capabilities and Western reluctance to provide such systems. Given the scale of Russian missile attacks, providing Ukraine with cruise missiles would not constitute escalation but rather represents a proportional legal response under the Law of Land Warfare.

The Tomahawk has been employed in most American military operations over the past four decades. Traditionally ship or submarine-launched, it has been used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and other theaters. The missile can also be fired from land-based systems, specifically the SM-6 on the Typhon platform built by Raytheon. The Typhon system was developed primarily for INDOPACOM to provide the U.S. Army with land-based Tomahawk and other advanced missile capabilities.

A battery of SM-6 missiles on the Typhon platform is composed of four containerized launchers, similar to HIMARS containerized systems. Even one battery deployed to Ukraine with an undisclosed number of Tomahawk and other long-range missiles could serve as an effective deterrent against future Russian missile launches. Rules of engagement could specify that after a certain date, for every cruise or ballistic missile fired into Ukraine, one precision strike would be conducted against targets in Russia or occupied territories. The accuracy, lethality, and range of these systems would bring numerous Russian military targets within reach—including the very airfields, command centers, and production facilities that enable continued attacks on Ukrainian civilians—ensuring immediate consequences for continued aggression.

Such a policy must be anchored to clear strategic objectives that extend beyond simply stopping attacks. The Trump Administration has an opportunity to define comprehensive strategic aims that integrate offensive strike capabilities as part of a broader approach to defeating Russia's most effective current offensive capability: indiscriminate attacks on innocent Ukrainian civilians. By clearly articulating these strategic objectives, policymakers can ensure that providing Ukraine with Tomahawk capabilities serves larger goals of deterring future aggression and protecting civilian populations.

The deployment of such powerful weapons systems would likely deter future Russian ballistic and cruise missile attacks, substantially reducing strikes on Ukraine. This approach would save Ukrainian lives while preserving global Patriot stockpiles for other critical defense requirements. Rather than continuing an unsustainable defensive posture that only intercepts the arrows, providing Ukraine with offensive strike capabilities to kill the archer offers a path toward ending the cycle of indiscriminate missile attacks on civilian targets while supporting broader strategic objectives for regional stability.

Dan Rice, President of the American University Kyiv

Ben Hodges, former Commanding General of U.S. Army Europe