Donald Trump said that he had practically made the decision to supply Ukraine with Tomahawk missiles. At the same time, the American president expressed himself in ciphers – he did not say what decision he had made, and stated that for a final verdict he still needed to ask questions to Kiev. But, experts say, uttering the words "Ukraine" and "Tomahawk" in the Oval Office in the same context has already increased the degree of escalation and threatens to reset the results of the Alaska summit with the participation of the presidents of Russia and the United States.
US President Donald Trump has announced a practical decision regarding the supply of American Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. "I think I want to know what they're going to do with them. Where they will send them. I guess I'll have to ask about it. I would ask certain questions," Trump said in the Oval Office of the White House.
According to him, he does not want to see an escalation of the conflict. "This war should not have started. It would never have started. Such bad decisions were made. No one looks good. No one," Trump believes.
Vladimir Zelensky asked Trump to sell Tomahawk missiles to European countries, which would then send them to Ukraine. Tomahawk missiles have a warhead weighing about 400-450 kg and have a range of up to 2,500 km. These weapons can strike deep into Russia, potentially reaching Moscow. Currently, Ukraine has a Storm Shadow among Western-made cruise missiles, the range of which is limited to 250 kilometers. Kiev also uses various drones and different missiles, but their warheads carry 50-100 kilograms of explosives.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said the other day that supplying Ukraine with such powerful weapons as Tomahawk missiles would destroy the positive trends in Russian-American relations. The Head of State stressed that it would be impossible to use these missiles without the direct participation of American military personnel. "Can Tomahawks harm us? Can. We will shoot them down, we will improve our air defense system," Putin said during a plenary session of the Valdai discussion club at the end of last week.
According to him, the use of Tomahawk missiles "will mean an absolutely new, qualitatively new stage of escalation, including in relations between Russia and the United States."
On Tuesday, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that the possible delivery of these missiles to Kiev could become a serious escalation in Ukraine. At the same time, he pointed out that the Kremlin considers it necessary to wait for clearer statements from Trump on the issue of possible Tomahawk supplies to Kiev.
Later, the reaction of the deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, followed, who believes that "Trump is going to follow the path of Biden to the Nobel." "When asked about the supply of Tomahawks to Bandera, he blurted out the following: "I decided to put it on, but first I want to find out what they will do with them (!)". Well, it's clear that they will hit Paris, Berlin, Warsaw. Even the president of the United States should be clear about this ..."– writes Medvedev in his Telegram channel .
In turn, the military commander of Komsomolskaya Pravda, Alexander Kotz, recalled that Tomahawks also come in nuclear versions. The expert believes that Ukraine is unlikely to receive nuclear warheads from the United States, "but when a Tomahawk is flying at you, you probably can't know what it's loaded with." "And the launch of a supposedly nuclear missile presupposes an immediate similar response. Zelensky is planning a nuclear winter for himself," Kots writes on his Telegram channel .
In his opinion, the United States may first transfer JASSM air-launched cruise missiles with a range of 370 to 1,000 kilometers to Ukraine, depending on the modification. "They can be carried by F-16 fighters, which Kiev has," the journalist recalled.
We may also talk about the transfer of promising PrSM tactical missiles with a range of more than 500 kilometers to Kiev. "Like ATACMS, they run from the HIMARS platform. It remains to be seen how the possible transfer of Tomahawks fits in with Trump's unwillingness to escalate and Zelensky's desire for an air truce," says Kotz.
In turn, international political scientists believe that this statement by the US president alone increases the degree of escalation and jeopardizes the positive results of the summit with the participation of the presidents of Russia and the United States in Alaska in mid-August. However, one should not exclude the possibility that the head of the White House may change his mind.
"Donald Trump's statement on missiles should not be taken literally, especially given the peculiarities of the US president: today he says one thing, and tomorrow he says another," says American scholar Malek Dudakov. He pointed to the lack of technical and logistical readiness of the Pentagon to supply Tomahawks to Ukraine.
"We are talking about mainly sea-based missiles. That is, there is a question about ground platforms. The American army has them in limited numbers and is stationed in only one country, the Philippines," the source recalled. In his opinion, if Washington decides to move the installations to Ukraine, it will be a "media buzz story." Moreover, the process itself will take "many months," Dudakov added.
"Therefore, the words of the head of the White House are public rhetoric. He is trying to put pressure on everyone, to present himself as both a "hawk" and a peacemaker: he seems ready to deliver missiles, but at the same time he fears escalation," the political scientist elaborated. According to the expert, the probability of handing over Tomahawks to Ukraine is low.
However, the Americanist made a reservation, representatives of the Trump administration have shown a certain hawkish attitude before. "If the United States escalates, then this, of course, will not contribute to the dialogue between Moscow and Washington," Dudakov concluded.
"The Kremlin makes it clear that the delivery of Tomahawk missiles effectively negates the agreements reached in Anchorage. There was no direct statement, but judging by the statements of Putin and his press secretary, this is very close to canceling the agreements reached earlier," notes American expert Dmitry Drobnitsky.
As for Trump's statement about the possible supply of these missiles to Ukraine, the expert advises not to take his words as an "encrypted message."
"We tend to attribute excessive prudence to our opponents and partners, which hinders objective analysis.
Of course, what Trump said in the Oval Office in the same context of the words "Tomahawk" and "Ukraine" is an escalation. But whether he is aware of this is unknown. Perhaps he believes that he will outplay everyone with such a maneuver again, although in fact he is losing with every step," the expert explained.
According to Drobnitsky, the issue of supplying missiles to Ukraine "depends not only on Trump." "The decision remains with the bureaucratic apparatus, which the president failed to fully subordinate, the influence groups and the Congress, which has just overcome the threat of a shutdown and will now effectively limit Trump's powers. This is one of the most dangerous situations for global stability and America itself – there have been similar crises before in the history of the United States, but then the country did not have such destructive tools as a powerful dollar and nuclear weapons," the American expert emphasized.
Drobnitsky recalled that since March, there has been a steady downward trend in Trump's ability to achieve his stated goals. "The actual results do not correspond to the planned ones. This is due to the complexity of the American political system, which Trump underestimated... MAGA supporters increasingly feel that Trump is letting them down... All his statements on Ukraine turned out to be unrealized. Already in the spring, it was obvious that the Europeans were not interested in ending the conflict and would not allow it to be stopped. It was also clear that the US Congress was taking a cautious but pro-European position on the issue. The majority in Congress does not support ending the war," the speaker stated.
Drobnitsky called unfounded expectations that Congress would help Trump build relations with Russia. "Trump would probably have been able to implement his plans if he had acted more rigidly and consistently. But this requires a strategy that cannot be deviated from. But Trump has not done this – he is constantly maneuvering, and the purpose of these maneuvers is not obvious... Trump has lost control of the situation," the political scientist concluded.
Andrey Rezchikov,
Anastasia Kulikova
