Either there is a change of posture, or the United States want everyone to think so
It is such a radical change that it is perhaps forgiven that the message is confused.
United States President Donald Trump is considering the possibility of providing Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, according to his vice president JD Vance.
“We are having conversations at this point on this issue,” Vance told Fox News Sunday, adding that Trump will make a “final decision.”
Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, said the same day he believed Ukraine was allowed to deeply attack Russia. “Use the ability to reach deeply,” he said. “There are no sanctuaries.” Kellogg clarified later that his comments referred only to public statements by Vance and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, not a new view of White House thinking. But Trump’s team is seriously considering Tomahawks supply – whose nature means they are only for long -range attacks against Russia – or want everyone to think so.
43 days ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin had entered Alaska with a red carpet. But now Kremlin is having to respond to the idea of the most effective long -term missile for the US to be provided to an enemy who, only seven months ago, Trump said “not having letters.” Days after Trump published in Truth Social that Ukraine could recover all occupied territory, this is another 180 degree political change, but one with long -range teeth.
First made famous in the 1991 Gulf War, Tomahawk is reserved for the closest allies – including the UK and Japan. Its four models go to the latest version, block IV, which can provide real -time information on the targets below, allowing a change during the flight. The United States would not provide weapons, but would sell them to Europe to deliver them to Kiev. But there is no doubt that this will not calm Moscow concerns that Trump administration is increasing and improving Ukraine’s abilities in this domain.
A TEACHAWK IV tactical cruise missile conducts a controlled flight test on the Western Naval Systems Command (Navair) in southern California, 2002 (US Navy/AFP/Getty Images)
The Ukrainian President has talked little about what he called a “sensitive subject.” Volodymyr Zelensky knows that Ukraine has already used long -range drones to damage Russia’s oil refineries to the point that gas scarcity in the country is an established fact. It is evident that Kiev is already able to attack in deep areas of Russia where war was to be a distant thing, where the poor died to fight. They have already shown that the mill can supplant strength and technology, using small drones hidden in containers to attack Siberian aerodromes in the Spider Web Operation. However, Tomahawks would represent a new kind of challenge for Russian air defenses. Government buildings in Moscow and the great infrastructure of the Ministry of Defense could become easy targets.
Is the plan to be prepared for what tactics call “strategic ambiguity”? Allow Ukraine’s long-range stock of long-range missiles to claim responsibility for Tomahawk attacks, or even vice versa? The wreckage of the missiles will probably indicate the true culprit. It is unlikely that US involvement will remain hidden and Moscow will be forced to try to respond the same way.
But there are two moments in the past that may help predict where this new threat of climbing is directed. The first is Washington’s last major impulse in terms of weaponry to Ukraine – Biden’s decision to allow Kiev to fire Atacm missiles to the interior of Russia. Putin replied, firing the new Oreshnik missile against Dnipro, against a virtually desert warehouse.
Lights are seen in the sky during a Russian attack on Dnipro in Ukraine on November 21, 2024 (Ukrainian Emergency Service/AP)
Parts of a missile collected for impact site analysis in the city of Dnipro after an attack on November 21, 2024 (Roman Pilipey/AFP/Getty Images)
The device seemed to terrify – a seemingly new IRBM, with nuclear capacity, fired with multiple conventional warheads, which Kremlin was boast of being able to cross European defenses. The Ukrainian experts stated that the device was a variation of an older model, the RS26, and showed me what seemed to be aged valves in their circuits, in a Kiev storage installation. In short, it did not seem to be a huge technical leap, nor a show of astonishing strength, but a slight nuclear saber maneuver in response to an undeniable US climbing. The scarcity of Russian resources, after three and a half years of war, can lead to an equally ineffective response to any use of Tomahawks.
The second precedent is less favorable to Ukraine. The last time the Trump administration threatened to climb in a way that would have surpassed its predecessor, it was implementing secondary sanctions against India and China for buying Russian oil – in response to months of insincere Russian diplomacy. Such a broad imposition of customs rights would have been a more fierce measure than any other contemplated by Joe Biden. In fact, 50% rates are currently in force against India. But Trump demanded that Europe stop buying Russian hydrocarbons if he wants to go further. So far, it has been contained.
This may be the fate of the Tomahawk debate. That, when it comes to Trump’s “final determination”, he follows his usual predisposition to pause in the most destructive measures and keeping a relationship that seems lasting to the point of the riddle – his friendship with Putin.
