How Ukraine Can Win

Europe can still do this.

Tell me if I’m wrong, because this question has refused to leave my head for three years.

In the first winter of Russia’s invasion, when the Kremlin launched its Kalibr cruise missiles from the Black Sea Fleet, the United States — a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum, which promised to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty — could have delivered Tomahawk cruise missiles to Kyiv.

If Washington had truly “managed escalation,” as Jake Sullivan claimed, it could have told the Kremlin: For every missile you fire into Ukraine, we’ll give Kyiv one Tomahawk for the first 30 days. After that, two for every one you launch.

That policy would have forced Moscow into two choices: pack up and go home, or fight and lose. This war could have been won in the first year for less than $50 billion, instead of being dragged out under the banner of “escalation management.”

We still have plenty of time and room to turn this around.

One thousand Tomahawk cruise missiles and one hundred F-16 Fighting Falcons could turn this war on its head and deliver a decisive defeat to the Russian armed forces — provided they’re delivered quickly, not dripped out over three years.

On paper, it’s just hardware. In practice, it’s the difference between Ukraine fighting with one hand tied behind its back and Russia facing an existential military crisis. The Tomahawk cruise missile is a precision strike weapon that can be launched from ships, submarines, or ground-based platforms.

The Tomahawk isn’t just a missile — it’s 1,000-mile reach puts every Russian command center, ammunition depot, and oil refinery from the Black Sea to the Urals within range. Each one carries a 1,000-pound warhead with GPS precision, able to hit a specific building, a specific floor, even a specific room.

Russia’s entire war machine is built on the assumption that its logistics hubs, command centers, and industrial base remain safely out of Ukrainian reach. One thousand Tomahawks would shatter that assumption overnight.

The F-16s multiply that threat exponentially. These aren’t just fighters — they’re mobile launch platforms capable of delivering additional precision weapons deep into Russian territory while also defending Ukrainian airspace. For three years, Russia’s air force has played a cautious game, launching missiles from far behind its own lines. F-16s would force Russian pilots to either engage in the dogfights they’ve avoided or watch their ground support infrastructure get systematically dismantled.

Tomahawks cost about $2 million each. One thousand missiles: $2 billion. F-16s run around $30 million per aircraft in a bulk purchase. One hundred fighters: $3 billion. Add maintenance, training, and logistics, and the total package is roughly $5-7 billion. Just last week, the EU transferred nearly $3 billion to assist Ukraine. Money was never the problem — the decision to withhold, especially by the country that promised protection, is.

Ukraine right now fights with:

• Limited deep-strike capacity — ATACMS (300 km) and Storm Shadow/SCALP (250 km) are the longest-range options. Most deep strikes are carried out by slow-moving drones with payloads under 75 kg.

• Air power deficit — Minimal modern fighter jets, relying mostly on aging Soviet-era MiG-29s and Su-27s.

• Air defense strain — Constant pressure defending against near-daily Russian missile and drone attacks.

• Attritional ground war — Static or slow-moving front lines, with costly advances measured in meters.

New Package Assumptions

1,000 Tomahawk missiles + ground-based launchers

• Range: ~1,000 mi (1,600 km)

• Launch method: Truck-mounted Mk 41 or similar containerized vertical launchers

• Payload: 450 kg (1,000 lb) unitary warhead, INS/GPS navigation, in-flight retargeting

• Accuracy: ~10 meters CEP

100 F-16 fighter jets

• Likely Block 50/52+ or equivalent

• Equipped with AMRAAM for air-to-air combat and JDAM / JASSM for air-to-ground strikes

• Supported by air-to-air refueling capability and NATO-compatible maintenance/logistics

Logical Effects on the War

1. Russian Strategic Depth Collapses

• Every major Russian military base, command center, fuel depot, and arms factory west of the Urals comes into range from inside Ukraine.

• Targets like Belgorod, Rostov-on-Don, Sevastopol, Voronezh, Engels Air Base, and even Moscow’s outskirts are now vulnerable.

• Russia would have to pull back high-value assets hundreds of km from the front to protect them — lowering operational efficiency.

Outcome: Russian logistics and command networks become permanently fragile; re-supply time to the front increases; tempo of Russian operations slows sharply.

2. Black Sea Fleet - Neutralized

• Tomahawks can be programmed to hit Sevastopol’s docks, warship berths, and repair yards with precision.

• A few dozen strikes could render the Black Sea Fleet combat-irrelevant for the rest of the war.

Outcome: Russia loses its naval strike capability in the Black Sea-

3. Ukraine Gains Localized Air Superiority

• 100 modern F-16s, properly armed, allow Ukraine to contest — and in some regions gain — localized air superiority.

• Russian Su-35s and MiG-31s would still be dangerous, but with a sustained deep strike and anti-air defense campaign, Ukrainian pilots could operate more aggressively.

• Close air support for Ukrainian ground forces becomes viable again.

Outcome: Ukraine could combine air and artillery strikes for coordinated offensives against Russian ground forces instead of relying on ground artillery and drones alone.

4. High-Tempo Deep Strike Campaign

• 1,000 Tomahawks is enough for months of sustained strikes at ~5–10 per day.

• Initial waves could destroy fixed targets: bridges, rail hubs, air defense sites, ammo depots.

• Second wave could hit mobile but high-value assets: Iskander launchers, S-400 batteries, key troop concentrations.

Outcome: Russia’s ability to mass forces for offensives would be crippled; every large build-up risks instant destruction.

5. Ukrainian Offensive Viability

• With Russian logistics disrupted and air defense degraded, Ukraine could launch multi-axis offensives in Donbas or the south.

• Tomahawks could clear corridors by taking out layered defenses before ground assaults.

• F-16s could provide suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) in real-time.

Outcome: Stalemate conditions break; Ukraine gains ability to reclaim territory at scale, not just nibble at edges.

6. Russian Countermeasures

Russia would flood border regions with mobile air defenses (S-400, S-300, Pantsir, Tor, Buk) to intercept Tomahawks — but defending the full 1,000 km range would be impossible. At some point, Moscow would have to choose whether to prioritize the south or the east. A withdrawal from Crimea would be likely, freeing up air defense assets to redeploy east and protect the aerial entry points into Ukraine’s eastern front.

Long-range strikes on Ukrainian launch sites would intensify — though mobile Tomahawk launchers can be concealed and rapidly relocated.

Missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian cities would also escalate in retaliation.

Outcome: Civilian risk in Ukraine rises, but military balance tilts decisively toward Ukraine if they protect launch assets.

Overall Strategic Shift

With this package, Ukraine would:

• Gain true strategic strike parity with Russia inside the theater.

• Deny Russia safe staging areas anywhere near Ukraine’s borders.

• Reclaim initiative in both ground and air warfare.

• Force Russia into a defensive and sustained reactive posture.

Outcome Deduction: Within 6 months, if used efficiently, this package could either:

1. Push Russia to accept a settlement from a position of weakness, or

2. Collapse Russian control over occupied territories through military defeat.

I didn’t write this story with Ukraine in mind. I wrote it with Europe in mind. Without long-range strike capability — and without that capability already positioned on the eastern front — Europe will find it extremely difficult to defend against a future Russian attack. This is why Germany recently moved to order Tomahawk missiles and Typhon ground launchers from the United States.

On paper, France has the capability. It has the missiles. It even has the long-range vision. Charles de Gaulle was right when he warned Europeans never to fully trust the United States — and he was right. But what has France done with that insight? It sat on it. Only now have they restarted SCALP cruise missile production, with a range of just 300 km. There is no indication they are actively manufacturing missiles capable of crossing the 1,000-mile threshold.

It is decisions like these that keep deepening Europe’s dependency on the United States. Whatever happens this Friday is immaterial. Maybe it works out well, maybe it doesn’t. There is only one move left for Europe from here: place a massive order for Tomahawk missiles, then figure out how to get F-16s into Ukraine’s hands.

Total cost — $5-7 billion.

The Concis needs your support.

Your support helps The Concis fly the flag for Ukraine—and for every democracy—a little stronger, a little higher.