By supplying Ukraine with advanced ERAM missiles, Trump hopes to convince Vladimir Putin that America can keep Russia from winning the war. The Kremlin isn’t fooled.
President Donald Trump is two things: an incredible showman and a sore loser. Right now, Trump understands that he has been dealt an abysmal hand by his much-maligned predecessor, President Joe Biden, when it comes to the Ukraine War. With no real end in sight to that conflict, Trump is seeking a negotiated settlement.
Trump Is Desperate to Look Tough on Russia
The consummate dealmaker, Trump is intimately familiar with the notion of “leverage”—and on some level understands that he has virtually none in Ukraine. Without leverage, he cannot get an amenable conclusion to the conflict. And his desire not to be blamed for any potential loss in Ukraine has driven him to continue selling advanced American weapons to Kyiv—even though he and his inner circle understand that Kyiv’s forces cannot win the war.
So a settlement is the only option. And in order to persuade Russia that America has leverage, Trump has put on a show of handing over increasingly advanced weapons to the fading Ukrainian Armed Forces. But the Kremlin—itself no stranger to hostile negotiations—knows the play, and by all appearances is not intimidated by it.
It is in this vein that the Trump administration recently approved the sale of 3,350 Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) cruise missiles to Ukraine. This decision aims to bolster Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities as the war enters its fourth year. ERAM missiles, a relatively new addition to the arsenal of Western aid, represent a low-cost, potentially high-impact solution designed for rapid production and deployment.
But due to operational restrictions, logistical challenges, and broader strategic dynamics working against the Ukrainian Armed Forces, these systems are unlikely to fundamentally alter the war’s momentum in Ukraine’s favor. In other words, it is a waste of time, resources, and diplomatic capital by the Trump administration—in a vain effort to gain leverage over Russia.
The ERAM Missile’s Specifications
The ERAM is an air-launched cruise missile developed under a United States Air Force (USAF) program to provide affordable, extended-range precision strikes. Designed for mass production, ERAM addresses the need for cost-effective munitions in prolonged conflicts like the Ukraine War.
The ERAM’s specifications are impressive. It boasts a strike radius of up to 288 miles, allowing Ukrainian forces to target deep behind enemy lines from safer standoff distances. It cruises at subsonic speeds, emphasizing stealth and precision over velocity. Beyond ground targets, the missile can be adapted for anti-ship and potentially anti-air roles, making it a flexible weapon for diverse threats. Its design draws from proven systems, like the GBU-31/B Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), incorporating GPS-guided navigation and possibly inertial systems for jammed environments.
The missile’s largest selling point for Ukraine’s cash-strapped military is its relatively low price point. Significantly cheaper than high-end alternatives like the JASSM-ER, ERAM is engineered for quick manufacturing, enabling large-scale deliveries to sustain high-tempo operations. This affordability is crucial for Ukraine, which has faced recurring munitions shortages throughout the three-year war. These features position ERAM as a potentially important tool for disrupting Russian logistics, command centers, and naval assets in the Black Sea, thereby extending Ukraine’s reach into contested areas.
Valued at around $850 million, the Trump administration moved quickly to officially authorize the sale of 3,350 ERAM missiles to Ukraine. Deliveries are slated to begin within weeks, with initial tranches arriving as early as six weeks from approval. Full rollout, however, could span months—or even years—depending on production ramps and integration training for Ukrainian pilots.
Why the ERAM Won’t Help Ukraine
Despite ERAM’s promising specs, several factors limit its potential to reverse Russia’s grinding advances in the Ukraine War.
First, the Pentagon has quietly imposed new restrictions on Ukrainian use of American munitions, blocking Kyiv from using US-supplied long-range missiles for strikes deep inside Russia. This policy, aimed at avoiding escalation and encouraging peace talks, confines ERAM to defensive roles within Ukraine or border areas, neutering the value of its long-range capabilities.
Of course, Ukraine has still been hitting Russia’s heartland with long-range weapons, mostly of domestic origin. While these attacks have been damaging to Russia, they have not slowed down its war on Ukraine. Russia simply has enough strategic depth to withstand such annoyances.
What’s more, those F-16s given to Ukraine are too few in number to make a difference. They are older models, too. Other problems include limited pilot training and vulnerabilities to Russia’s robust air defenses. Even though the Pentagon is billing the ERAM’s introduction to Ukraine as a way to avoid risking Ukraine’s F-16s, the fact remains that Russia’s S-400 air defense systems and fighter patrols could intercept launches or destroy carriers, limiting effective sorties.
Quantity and adaptation issues persist with the ERAM. While 3,350 missiles sound substantial, Russia’s vast territory and adaptive tactics—such as relocating assets and fortifying positions—dilute their impact. Previous infusions like ATACMS provided tactical wins but failed to halt Russia’s attrition warfare, where manpower and artillery superiority dominate.
The war’s momentum favors Russia due to Ukraine’s exhaustion, recruitment challenges, and economic strain. ERAM can’t address these systemic issues. It is a bandage for a deeper wound.
As Trump pushes for negotiations, this aid seems more symbolic than transformative. The president’s ERAM sale is a concrete commitment to Ukraine’s defense, offering enhanced capabilities with swift availability. Yet restrictions, operational hurdles, and the conflict’s entrenched nature ensure it won’t tip the scales. It will simply prolong the suffering—and risk making Trump and the United States look impotent when the delivery fails to affect the war’s outcome. For lasting change in the Ukraine War, diplomacy must be the preferred strategy.
About the Author: Brandon J. Weichert
Brandon J. Weichert is a senior national security editor at The National Interest. Recently, Weichert became the host of The National Security Hour on America Outloud News and iHeartRadio, where he discusses national security policy every Wednesday at 8pm Eastern. He is also a contributor at Popular Mechanics and has consulted regularly with various government institutions and private organizations on geopolitical issues. Weichert’s writings have appeared in multiple publications, including The Washington Times, National Review, The American Spectator, MSN, The Asia Times, and countless others. His books include Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His newest book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine is available for purchase wherever books are sold. He can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.
Image: Wikimedia Commons.
