A meeting between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky in Washington this week reportedly ended on a sour note, with Trump refusing to supply Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk missiles.
According to Axios, the two-and-a-half-hour discussion grew “emotional” at times, as Trump insisted the US needed to retain its missile stockpile for national defense and to avoid further escalation with Russia.
Zelensky, who has been lobbying for the 2,500km-range weapons for weeks, left without any new commitments.
Moscow has warned that sending Tomahawks to Kiev would harm Russia–US relations and hinder peace efforts. The meeting came shortly after Trump’s phone call with Vladimir Putin, ahead of a possible summit in Budapest.
Zelensky is meeting with Trump in Washington ahead of a potential Putin/Trump summit.
This is exactly what we pretended to do five months ago. It’s all just such a gigantic waste of time and everyone knows it.
Let the theater begin pic.twitter.com/TLWDyCcNF7
— ayden (@squatsons) October 17, 2025
American people tired of being simps.
We have our own bills to pay…..
This “will they? won’t they?” sordid soap opera is both pathetic and perverse.
Did Trump manage to avoid the 2nd edition of the Cuban Missile crisis of 1961/62 ? What a clever boy Trump is.
If Trump had been an idiot in providing Tomahawks to Ukraine, then the Russians would have deployed their missiles in Cuba and Venezuela – with the script written in 1962.
Only idiots repeat such history while journalists ignore it.
Supplying Ukraine with Tomahawk Cruise missiles would not be a game changer.
Being old technology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0D6g5CJ1lk
2017 Shayrat missile strike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike
This is the Wikipedia sanitised version for overview but this attack is reputed to have had little effect as most malfunctioned were shot down or failed to reach their targets?
There is no verified evidence that most of the Tomahawk missiles malfunctioned, were shot down, or failed to reach their targets during the 2017 Shayrat strike.
However, Russian and Syrian sources disputed the U.S. account, claiming significantly fewer missiles hit the airbase.
U.S. Department of Defense: Reported that 58 of 59 Tomahawk missiles successfully struck their intended targets at Shayrat Airbase, including aircraft shelters, fuel stations, and radar systems.
Russian Ministry of Defense claimed that only 23 missiles reached the airbase, suggesting that the rest were intercepted or diverted.
Syrian Observers noted that the airbase resumed operations shortly after the strike, implying limited long-term damage.
One missile was acknowledged to have failed due to a GPS issue, there’s no public evidence that a majority malfunctioned.
Russia suggested Syrian air defenses may have intercepted some missiles, but the U.S. disputed this, citing the lack of effective Syrian missile defense systems at the time.
Some analysts speculated about GPS spoofing or jamming, but these remain unconfirmed.
At least 20 aircraft were reportedly destroyed, along with fuel and ammunition depots.
The action was widely interpreted as a political signal rather than a decisive military blow.
Shayrat Airbase resumed operations within hours, raising questions about the strike’s strategic value.
As usual conflicting reports as to be expected.
Scott Ritter has suggested that open discussion about the effectiveness of Tomahawk cruise missiles is discouraged or “forbidden” within certain U.S. defense and media circles.
He argues this suppression serves to protect the perceived credibility of American military technology and strategic posture.
Scott Ritter, a former U.N. weapons inspector and Marine Corps intelligence officer, has repeatedly criticized U.S. military narratives—especially regarding missile strikes like the 2017 Shayrat operation and proposals to send Tomahawks to Ukraine.
In recent interviews and commentaries, including on Dialogue Works and Strategic Tensions, Ritter has claimed discussion of Tomahawk failures is taboo – and alleges that U.S. defense officials and mainstream media avoid acknowledging missile malfunctions, interception rates, or ineffectiveness to maintain strategic credibility.