Key Points and Summary on How Ukraine Could Attack Moscow with Missiles – In a stunning policy reversal, President Donald Trump reportedly encouraged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to conduct deep strikes into Russian territory, according to a Financial Times report on their July 4th phone call.
-Trump allegedly asked Zelenskyy if he could “hit Moscow” and “St. Petersburg too” if the U.S. provided the necessary long-range weapons.
-This aggressive new stance, which came a day after a “bad” call with Vladimir Putin, marks a dramatic pivot from Trump’s earlier efforts to pressure Ukraine into a peace deal and signals a new strategy of using significant military leverage to force Russia to the negotiating table.
Ukraine Could Hit Moscow with Missiles?
Meetings and calls between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy often make headlines.
One of them, in Trump’s first term, led to Trump’s first impeachment. Others have taken place at crucial moments of the Russia-Ukraine war, whether it was Trump and Vice President JD Vance dressing down Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, or Trump and Zelenskyy having a meeting on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral.
Now, another Trump/Zelenskyy call has made news.
This time, it surrounds the decision, announced Monday, that Trump will allow the shipment of new offensive weapons to Ukraine, through NATO allies, which will be coupled with the threat to impose new secondary tariffs on Russia, should Vladimir Putin not return to the negotiating table.
According to the Financial Times, Trump and Zelenskyy had another call on July 4, where they discussed the prospect of new weapons, and Trump made a surprising ask.
Trump, in a recent call with Zelenskyy, “privately encouraged Ukraine to step up deep strikes on Russian territory, even asking Volodymyr Zelenskyy whether he could strike Moscow if the US provided long-range weapons,” FT reported, citing “people briefed on the discussions.”
Ukraine Hitting Moscow?
“Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? . . . Can you hit St Petersburg too?,” Trump asked on the call, to which his Ukrainian counterpart answered affirmatively.
“Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons,” Zelenskyy reportedly replied to him.
Trump appeared receptive to the idea, telling Zelenskyy that the idea of the new weapons is to “make them [Russians] feel the pain,” with the idea of bringing the Russians back to the table.
The report also said that the discussion opened the door for “a list of potential weapons for Kyiv being shared by the US side with the Ukrainian president in Rome last week.”
FT also reported that the call followed one between Trump and Putin the day before, which was described as “bad.”
What Now?
CNN on Tuesday published an analysis by Brett H. McGurk, who worked on foreign policy in four different presidential administrations, ending with Joseph Biden’s, looking at how Trump’s shift “changes the calculus in Ukraine.”
McGurk noted the massive shift in Trump’s posture from February, when he essentially told Zelenskyy, in front of TV cameras, that he had no hope of winning the war and should make peace with Russia, to this week, when he promised Ukraine new weapons.
This followed Trump’s promise during the 2024 campaign to end the war on the first day of his presidency.
“These scenes bookmark a chapter of ineffective American diplomacy and the beginning of a new and more promising one: diplomacy backed by the leverage ultimately required to stop a war that Putin has otherwise demonstrated he intends to continue indefinitely,” McGurk wrote.
McGurk cited his own work, in which he had to deal with Russia during the campaign against ISIS, which led at one point to U.S. forces attacking a column of the Russia-aligned Wagner Group.
“A Russian expert on my team said the Russians approach diplomacy as a bear approaches a dance. The bear knows it will determine when and how the dance ends, unless the other dance partner proves itself to be a bigger bear. Sometimes, it helps to be the bigger bear,” he wrote.
A Stark Choice
According to McGurk, Trump had a choice: He could pull the U.S. out of the conflict altogether and let the chips fall where they may, or another choice, that Trump appears to have chosen:
“Reinforce diplomacy with a demonstration of commitment to Ukraine through military resupplies, coordination with allies and imposing additional costs on Putin should he choose to continue the war. Under this option, the US would stick to the objective of a ceasefire – this war can only end with a deal – but the tactics for getting there would shift away from pleading appeals to Putin’s good will and recognition that Russia (not Ukraine) has been the obstacle to peace.”
About the Author: Stephen Silver
Stephen Silver is an award-winning journalist, essayist, and film critic, and contributor to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Broad Street Review, and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. For over a decade, Stephen has authored thousands of articles that focus on politics, national security, technology, and the economy. Follow him on X (formerly Twitter) at @StephenSilver, and subscribe to his Substack newsletter.
More Military
The U.S. Navy’s Submarine Crisis Is Real
