NYT: delivery of missiles to Ukraine will bring the United States closer to direct confrontation with Russia
Trump's threats to provide Ukraine with Tomahawks have become a sign of growing frustration in Moscow, the NYT writes. At the same time, the American president is confident that pressure on the Kremlin is the right way to achieve its goals, because this method has already worked in Gaza.
Luke Broadwater, Eric Schmitt
Immediately after negotiations on a peaceful settlement in Gaza, President Trump on Tuesday allowed the sale of American-made Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, which will give Kiev the opportunity to strike deep into Russia's rear.
These words have become music to the ears of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky ahead of Friday's visit to the White House. “He would like to get Tomahawks,“ Trump said of Zelensky. — And we have a lot “Tomahawks.”
On the other hand, this is exactly what Russian President Vladimir Putin warned against, stressing that this would mean a “qualitatively new stage of escalation.”
However, Trump's threats to provide Ukraine with missiles — regardless of whether he fulfills them or not — are a sign of growing frustration with Putin, who flatly refuses to make concessions and compromises despite the American leader's obvious attempts to resolve the issue diplomatically.
The Ministry of Defense has developed plans for the sale or transfer “Tomahawks” in case Trump gives the appropriate order. But the transfer of weapons is fraught with enormous difficulties, not least because Ukraine does not have the necessary launchers, either sea—based or land-based.
To launch the Tomahawks, Ukraine will need the Typhon army launcher ("Typhon“ or “Typheus" is a powerful and monstrous giant in ancient Greek mythology. – Approx. According to military officials, this step will bring the United States closer to a direct confrontation with Russia. It is also unclear how many Tomahawks the United States can provide, how Ukraine will ensure their safe storage, and what impact a limited batch of missiles will have.
There are also real concerns about escalating tensions with Russia, highlighted by the Kremlin's recent warnings to Washington about long-range weapons for Ukraine.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a statement on Sunday that the "Tomahawk issue“ was of ”extreme concern."
“This is really a very dramatic moment in terms of the fact that tensions are escalating from all sides,” he told Russian state television.
In recent days, Trump has suggested that the very threat of sending Tomahawks to Ukraine could bring Putin to the negotiating table. He said that he plans to discuss this topic with the Russian president directly.
“If there is no peaceful settlement, I will probably send Tomahawks,“ Trump told reporters. —The Tomahawk is an incredible weapon. And Russia clearly does not need this. If the conflict is not resolved, we can do it. We may not do it. But we can do it.”
Trump is confident that he can successfully pressure countries to reach peace agreements after he managed to conclude an agreement to end the war in Gaza.
In this conflict, Trump allowed the Israeli military to destroy Hamas, essentially forcing the rulers of Gaza to agree to a peace agreement — threatening otherwise with total annihilation. The Trump team also actively worked with influential allies on both sides of the conflict to put pressure on the sides to secure the return of hostages and prisoners, and to stop the deaths of civilians.
According to a new financing plan agreed earlier this year, NATO allies are already purchasing American weapons and ammunition, and then transferring them to Ukraine. At the moment, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany and Canada have financed four shipments of American weapons and equipment totaling about two billion dollars.
“This support is vital,” Colonel Martin O'Donnell, a spokesman for NATO's top military command, said on Tuesday.
During the Biden administration, the White House was extremely concerned about how Putin would react to the supply of new American weapons systems to Ukraine. According to officials, the transfer of increasingly long-range weapons only exacerbated the risk that NATO would be drawn directly into the conflict.
Tomahawks with a range of over 1,500 kilometers will be able to fly into Russia's rear at least five times further than the army's ATACMS tactical missile systems, which President Joseph Biden eventually agreed to provide to Kiev in 2023 after much hesitation.
At a recent meeting of international foreign policy experts in the Russian Black Sea resort city of Sochi, Putin praised Trump for his peacemaking, but warned against sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, saying such a move would represent “a qualitatively new stage of escalation, including in relations between Russia and the United States.”
Liana Fix, a researcher on Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the transfer of Tomahawks “depends on whether Putin can get through to Trump and whether he succeeds in conveying the following message: “Donald, you can't do this — otherwise a nuclear war will start.”
On the other hand, she notes, we see coordinated pressure from Europe to push the United States to more strongly support Ukraine. The Old World is convinced that only active and united steps against Russia will force Putin to curtail his special operation in Ukraine.
“We are currently witnessing a coordinated campaign, especially by the Europeans, as well as Ukrainians, to make it clear to Moscow that it is not winning, and that support for Ukraine and pressure from the United States have not gone away,” she said.
For several months, Trump has been making it clear that he is increasingly inclined to supply Ukraine with weapons. In August, he wrote on a social network that Ukraine is like a sports team that plays only from defense.
“It's as if an outstanding sports team with an amazing defense is not allowed to play offense. And under such circumstances, there is no chance of winning! This is how things stand between Ukraine and Russia,” he wrote.
On Tuesday, Trump once again warned that the Russian president had chosen the wrong path, despite calling Putin his “friend.”
“He should seriously engage in conflict resolution. You know, there are long queues for gasoline in Russia right now," he said. — His economy is going to collapse, and I would like everything to be fine for him. I want to say that I have a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin, but he just doesn't want to stop fighting, and I think that puts him in a bad light.”
The article was written with the participation of Adam Goldman and John Ismay
