Washington/Kyiv, July 15 —In a development that could further complicate global diplomacy around the Ukraine war, U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy whether Kyiv had the capacity to strike Moscow—if supplied with advanced American missiles. The conversation is said to have occurred during a phone call on July 4, one day after Trump had spoken separately with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The report, published by the Financial Times, cites two unnamed sources familiar with the call, and suggests Trump explicitly inquired about Ukraine’s ability to carry out deep-penetration strikes using U.S.-supplied ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missiles. These long-range tactical weapons have been a consistent demand from Kyiv since early in the war, but Washington has so far supplied them in limited numbers and with restrictions on use within Russian territory.
Trump Frustrated by Putin’s Stance
According to the FT report, Trump appeared visibly frustrated after his conversation with President Putin, allegedly describing the Russian leader as unwilling to negotiate and “entrenched” in his military objectives. The conversation with Zelenskyy, by contrast, seemed to reflect Trump’s desire to recalibrate American pressure on Moscow—not just through diplomacy, but through potential escalation on the battlefield.
The phone call also reportedly touched on broader questions about Ukraine’s current missile capacities and intelligence precision, in light of Kyiv’s recent cross-border drone and artillery operations in Russian border regions.
A Shift in U.S. Military Calculations?
The revelations come at a pivotal moment in transatlantic security coordination. Although the Pentagon has paused certain deliveries to Ukraine, President Trump—hosting NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte at the White House this week—declared that the United States would soon ramp up production and deliveries of advanced weapons to NATO allies.
“We are going to produce top-of-the-line weapons, and they will go to NATO,” Trump told reporters at a press briefing, reinforcing his administration’s intent to maintain deterrence against Russian aggression.
Among the systems under discussion is the Patriot air defense platform. Trump confirmed that the U.S. is working on a deal to redirect 17 Patriot batteries, currently held by a NATO partner nation, for potential deployment to Ukraine. “We’re negotiating a transfer—possibly all, or at least a majority of them—to the war zone,” he said.
Ceasefire Deadline and Economic Pressure
In a sharp message to Moscow, Trump issued a 50-day ultimatum for the Kremlin to agree to a ceasefire deal or face aggressive economic retaliation.
“If there’s no deal in 50 days, we’ll impose secondary tariffs—100 percent. That’s how it’s going to be,” the U.S. president warned, signaling a return to hardline economic leverage that characterized his first term in office.
Analysts have interpreted this as a high-stakes gamble. While some view Trump’s strategy as a means to pressure Russia into concessions, others warn it risks heightening tensions and derailing fragile backchannel diplomacy.
Strategic Implications for Ukraine and NATO
For Kyiv, Trump’s remarks suggest a possible shift in Washington’s calculus—away from strict containment and toward a doctrine of forward deterrence. But the implications are complex. While long-range missile capabilities may give Ukraine greater leverage, they also risk provoking harsher retaliation from Moscow.
The Kremlin has not officially commented on the report, but Russian state media have already condemned the alleged missile discussions as “reckless provocation” and accused the United States of stoking escalation.
Zelenskyy’s office has declined to confirm or deny the contents of the July 4 call but reiterated that Ukraine seeks defensive parity to protect its cities and regain lost territory—not to expand the war.
As both diplomacy and war grind on with little resolution in sight, this latest episode adds a fresh layer of geopolitical intrigue—and raises critical questions about the evolving role of U.S. leadership in one of the world’s most consequential conflicts.
