By John Q. Hosedrinker 
AP News reported that President Donald Trump suggested he may send Ukraine long-range Tomahawk missiles if Russia does not settle its war. Trump stated this to reporters aboard Air Force One, mentioning he might tell Russia that if the war isn’t settled, the U.S. may provide the offensive weapons. These comments followed a conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who said the pair discussed strengthening Ukraine’s long-range capabilities. The Kremlin expressed “extreme concern” regarding the potential for the U.S. providing Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine.
Read the original article here
Trump warns Russia he may send Ukraine long-range Tomahawks if Moscow doesn’t settle war soon. This is a statement that has understandably stirred quite a bit of discussion, so let’s break it down and see what we can make of it.
The heart of the matter is this: Trump is floating the possibility of sending long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. Now, the Tomahawk missile is a serious piece of weaponry. It’s known for its ability to fly under radar and strike high-value targets with remarkable precision. It’s not just any missile; it’s designed for strategic impact.
It is worth considering the potential consequences of such an action. The Tomahawk has a range of about 1,000 miles. This range is more than enough to reach deep into Russian territory from the Ukrainian border. However, it’s also important to remember that the Ukrainians have some missiles with a longer range, like the “Flamingo” with a range of 1900-mi, so range alone isn’t the deciding factor.
The strategic implications here are substantial. If Ukraine were to receive a substantial number of Tomahawks, and be given the freedom to use them against key Russian infrastructure, like power plants and oil refineries, the war’s trajectory could shift. This would affect Russia’s ability to wage war on all fronts. It’s a move that could cripple Russia’s ability to sustain its war effort and potentially force a quicker resolution to the conflict.
The potential for a swift resolution is further highlighted by the fact that the Tomahawk missiles are very old. Russia may be shaking in their boots in this eventuality, but as with many old weapons systems, the Tomahawk would require a compatible launch system to be effective. Since these systems are few and far between, this might mean the US would have to provide a launch platform, too.
But, of course, the real question isn’t about the technical aspects, but the actual probability of this happening. The way Trump is handling this announcement is very interesting, and it’s crucial to understand the context. It’s a “maybe” scenario, a “we might” situation. This creates uncertainty. Does it suggest a serious policy consideration, or is it meant to grab headlines and keep the attention on him? It’s worth noting that his approach seems to be centered around self-promotion, rather than a clear strategy. It feels different from the Biden administration’s approach, where announcements and aid delivery were more structured and predictable. This “maybe” approach leaves Ukraine in a state of uncertainty.
Also, there’s the question of timing. If this is going to happen, when? This has to be thought through. The logistics of providing and integrating such a weapon system are not trivial. It would take time. This also creates doubts that the process will ever happen, which has been a regular refrain.
Moreover, there are doubts about whether Trump would actually take this step, given his past interactions and comments. Some observers have pointed to Trump’s past statements and perceived affinity with Putin, leading to the idea that the threat is unlikely to be carried out.
The tone and language around the statements are also telling. The use of “may” and “soon” without concrete deadlines or commitments is a hallmark of the announcement. This vagueness has led to criticism that it’s all talk and no action.
Ultimately, the situation remains unclear. The potential consequences of deploying these weapons are significant. However, the ambiguity surrounding the announcement, the lack of specifics, and the historical context all raise questions about whether this potential shift in strategy is actually going to occur. For now, the world waits, and the conflict in Ukraine continues.