In a major shift that could redefine the trajectory of the Russia-Ukraine war, the United States has approved expanded intelligence sharing with Ukraine, enabling Kyiv to target deep inside Russian territory with long-range missiles. The move, sanctioned by President Donald Trump’s administration, places Russia’s critical energy infrastructure—and potentially even its top leadership—within reach.
The development signals a new, more dangerous phase in the war, where the lines between the battlefield and Russia’s heartland blur, raising questions of escalation, retaliation, and global fallout.
A Dramatic Shift in US Policy
For most of the war, Washington placed firm limits on how Ukraine could use Western-provided intelligence. Strikes were largely confined to occupied territories or regions near the border. But according to The Wall Street Journal, those restrictions have now been lifted.
U.S. intelligence agencies will provide Kyiv with real-time satellite imagery, geospatial mapping, and signals intelligence to identify high-value targets hundreds of miles inside Russia. The stated objective: disrupt Russia’s war economy by crippling its energy sector—oil refineries, gas pipelines, and power plants.
Ukraine has already demonstrated its ability to damage Moscow’s energy assets. Since August 2025, drones and shorter-range missiles have disabled 16 of Russia’s 38 oil refineries. With U.S. assistance and possible future transfers of long-range cruise missiles like the Tomahawk, Ukraine could amplify this campaign, striking deeper into Russia than ever before.
Trump’s Calculated Gamble
The policy shift reflects both strategic recalibration and political calculation.
Trump’s first presidency was marked by skepticism toward Ukraine, culminating in the 2019 impeachment scandal tied to withheld military aid. But his return to the White House in January 2025 has seen a harder line toward Moscow, reportedly fueled by frustration over President Vladimir Putin’s refusal to engage in peace talks.
Administration officials describe the intelligence package as a “proportional response” to Russia’s systematic attacks on Ukraine’s civilian power grid, which have left millions of Ukrainians without heat or electricity during the harsh winter.
The move fits Trump’s broader “America First” doctrine: strengthen Ukraine just enough to push Putin toward negotiation, without committing U.S. troops or assuming the burden Europe should carry.
Zelenskyy’s Escalating Rhetoric
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has seized on the development, framing it as a turning point.
In a televised address on October 2, he vowed, “Russia’s blackouts for our people will become their blackouts for their war machine. With our partners’ help, we will strike where it hurts most—the heart of their aggression.”
For Zelenskyy, the logic is clear: if Russia can bomb Ukraine’s cities and destroy its energy grid, Kyiv must be allowed to respond in kind. His comments have fueled speculation that Ukraine could move beyond infrastructure strikes to target Russia’s military command nodes—and even its political leadership.
An analysis in The Economic Times went further, suggesting that with U.S. intelligence and long-range precision weapons, even Moscow, and by extension Putin himself, might no longer be beyond reach.
Such speculation underscores how far the war has evolved: from territorial defense to potential decapitation strategies aimed at destabilizing the Kremlin’s inner circle.
Moscow’s Red Lines
Unsurprisingly, the Kremlin has reacted with fury.
Putin dismissed suggestions of personal targeting as “Hollywood fantasy,” but warned that U.S. provision of long-range missiles would “seriously damage U.S.-Russia relations” and escalate the conflict to dangerous levels. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov labeled the move a provocation and reiterated Moscow’s view that the West is waging a direct proxy war.
Behind the rhetoric, Moscow is taking precautions. Russia has begun bolstering air defenses around refineries and relocating key facilities further from Ukrainian strike range. State media has launched a new narrative portraying Ukraine as a “terrorist state” emboldened by Western intervention.
Russian doctrine allows for nuclear escalation if the state’s leadership or strategic command is under threat, raising concerns that even the perception of a strike on Putin could trigger catastrophic retaliation.
Risks of Escalation
The risks of this policy are profound.
If Ukraine leverages U.S. intelligence to hit Russia’s energy infrastructure, global oil markets could see prices spike by 10–15 percent, with knock-on effects for inflation-strained economies worldwide. Strikes on refineries also carry the risk of environmental disasters similar to the 2024 Black Sea oil spill.
If Kyiv targets Russia’s command centers or leadership, the consequences could be even more dire. Russia could escalate with chemical weapons, cyberattacks on NATO states, or even preemptive military actions outside Ukraine.
Yet, for Ukraine, the new capability offers a chance to alter the balance of power. Targeted strikes could weaken Russia’s logistics, disrupt its military cohesion, and pressure Moscow’s leadership into negotiations. The mere possibility of assassination attempts—even if never carried out—forces Russia’s elite to change routines, bunker down, and operate under constant fear.
Global implication
Reactions among U.S. allies are divided. The UK has welcomed the shift, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer calling it “a necessary evolution.” France and Germany, however, are urging caution, warning of “unintended nuclear signaling.”
In Washington, Trump’s move has polarized debate. Hawks see it as smart power; isolationists see another entanglement. Democrats accuse the president of flip-flopping to score electoral points ahead of midterms.
Beyond politics, the strategy risks further fragmenting Russia’s economy. With energy revenues already strained, more refinery shutdowns could push Moscow deeper into reliance on China and India.
The Darkest Unknown
Ultimately, the question is whether Zelenskyy will use these tools to strike at the Kremlin itself—or restrain Ukraine’s campaign to infrastructure targets.
Even without such a strike, the threat alone shifts the calculus. Putin may be forced into bunkers, Russia’s chain of command may be disrupted, and the Kremlin’s aura of invulnerability may erode.
But if Ukraine crosses the line into targeting leadership, escalation could spiral uncontrollably, dragging NATO and the world economy into crisis.
The U.S. decision to provide Ukraine with deep-strike intelligence marks a pivotal moment in the war. It empowers Kyiv at a critical juncture, but it also raises the stakes for escalation on a scale not seen since the Cold War.
For Zelenskyy, it is both an opportunity and a gamble: to leverage new capabilities for battlefield advantage or risk a devastating response from a cornered adversary.
As winter looms and Russia continue its assaults, the question remains: will Ukraine use its new reach to pressure Moscow into peace—or unleash a confrontation that reshapes global security?
As Zelenskyy declared, “The aggressor must feel the cost.” The world now waits to see how far that cost will go—and whether even the Kremlin’s corridors remain safe.