By Matt Underwood Putin says Tomahawk supply to Ukraine would destroy U.S. relations – well, that certainly sets the stage, doesn’t it? It seems the potential for sending those long-range, ship-launched missiles to Ukraine has ruffled some feathers, and by some feathers, I mean the ones belonging to the Kremlin. This whole situation brings up a lot of interesting points, and it’s worth unpacking them to understand what might be at stake.
The immediate reaction to this statement seems to be a collective shrug of the shoulders. “What relations?” seems to be the prevailing sentiment. Many feel that whatever relationship existed between the U.S. and Russia has already been significantly damaged, if not outright destroyed, by Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and frankly, by its history of antagonism toward the West. Invading a sovereign nation and committing war crimes, as some put it, pretty much trashes any pretense of a friendly relationship.
The focus quickly shifts to the potential hypocrisy in Putin’s warning. The argument goes something like this: Russia has been engaged in a form of asymmetric warfare against the U.S. and NATO for years, often through cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and other actions designed to undermine Western interests. So, to hear a threat about destroying relations now, when Russia has already done so much to damage those relations, feels a bit rich. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black, and people aren’t buying it.
There’s also a sense that Putin might be bluffing. This could be interpreted as a desperate tactic to deter the U.S. from providing more advanced weaponry to Ukraine. The implication is that the Kremlin is afraid, and this fear is what’s driving the strong rhetoric. This type of aggressive posturing is a recurring theme, and many have become accustomed to seeing it as a predictable pattern of behavior.
Then we dive into the specifics of the Tomahawk missiles themselves. There’s a bit of technical skepticism mixed in with the general disdain. The Tomahawk is a ship-launched system, and the immediate question is, how would Ukraine even use them? The logistical hurdles of integrating such a system into Ukraine’s existing military infrastructure are significant. This brings up the question of why not give Ukraine something like JASSM missiles that can immediately be launched from their existing F-16s?
The “Trump factor” inevitably comes into play. There’s the persistent suspicion that Trump and Putin had, or perhaps still have, a close relationship, fueled by speculation about Trump’s motivations and allegiances. The thought of Trump, if he were in a position to do so, caving to Putin’s threats is a major point of concern for many, as is the potential for Trump to show deference to Putin. This fear highlights the deep distrust in the West of the ex-president’s sympathies.
The tone overall is one of weariness and frustration. Many people seem tired of Putin’s tactics, the constant threats, and the manipulation. There’s a prevailing sense that Russia is the aggressor and that it is up to the West to stand firm. The idea that Russia’s actions have already destroyed relations with the world is, therefore, a common one.
The possibility of more significant action, even direct military action, is brought up with varying degrees of seriousness. Some suggest that the world would have already taken more extreme measures against Russia if not for the existence of nuclear weapons. This highlights the chilling reality of the global political landscape and the constraints imposed by the threat of mutually assured destruction.
Beyond the immediate issue of Tomahawks, the conversation touches on the broader question of Russia’s future. Some propose more sweeping measures, such as the “deputinfication” of Russia, including removing the current leadership, reforming its media and military, and subjecting it to foreign observation. This reflects a deep-seated desire for fundamental change, to completely dismantle Russia’s current power structures and institute a new era of openness and accountability.
Ultimately, the consensus seems to be that the U.S. shouldn’t be intimidated by Putin’s threats. The relationship, whatever it was, has already been severely damaged. If providing more advanced weapons to Ukraine is the right thing to do, then it should be done, regardless of Putin’s warnings. There is the understanding that the current situation involves fundamental issues of sovereignty, human rights, and the future of international order, and that these issues must take precedence over any supposed “relations” with an aggressor.