Nikki Haley has said that there was always a 5% chance Trump would use nukes against our enemies which allows him to gain leverage in negotiations. So the closest the world came to nuclear armageddon was when China believed Trump might nuke them after he lost the 2020 election and Milley had to calm China’s fears.
If they are approved and actually used, it will all surely lead to WW3. Russia has been deceived two many times by Minsk 1 and 2 and many other broken promises since the fall of the Soviet Union and WILL NOT alter its official position with regard to the war in the Ukraine and what is required to stop it. That includes Tomahawk missiles. WW3 will result.
Not really. Providing weapons doesn't count as war. Same as secret commandos. Otherwise, Qatar would be in hot war with Israel. You have to differentiate between casus belli and the actual hot war.
IIRC the sorties against Venezuela or Iran didn't start from carriers. Sure, Russians could supply modern AD systems to Iran. Then Israel would start helping Ukraine in earnest (which it doesn't do now). The Patriot system (which USA was buying back) was already not that reliable during the first Gulf war, and doesn't seem to be that good now. If it were that superior, Israelis would have made lots of noise of not wanting to give it up.
So far, Israel is not sharing its technology with Ukraine. Moreover, because EU getting more and more hostile to Israel, at some point it will start seriously triangulating. If Russians wanted to cause pain to US, Venezuela and Cuba (and now even Colombia) are better targets of help.
EU is crazy going after Russia and now Israel too.
The prospect of sending Tomahawks to Ukraine is not just reckless, it is an open invitation to escalation with Russia. As you rightly note, these weapons were never intended for tactical battlefield use but for strategic strikes deep inside an adversary’s territory. That makes them uniquely provocative, since their deployment will be seen by Moscow as a direct US military intervention, no matter how Washington tries to frame it.
A few complementary points stand out. First, the very nature of the Tomahawk blurs the line between conventional and nuclear war. Russia’s doctrine has always treated long-range cruise missiles as potential nuclear delivery systems. That means every launch risks misinterpretation, an incredibly dangerous situation when two nuclear superpowers are already at the brink.
Second, this decision reflects the hubris of US policymakers who believe Russia’s economy is on the verge of collapse. In reality, Russia has weathered years of sanctions, restructured its economy, and found new markets across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Strikes on infrastructure may be painful, but they have also spurred Russian resilience and innovation. Assuming that Tomahawks could “seal the deal” on regime change is a misreading of both Russian capacity and political culture.
Finally, the move highlights a deeper problem. Washington’s addiction to tactical escalation as a substitute for strategic vision. Each new weapons transfer such as HIMARS, Storm Shadows, ATACMS, F-16s, and now potentially Tomahawks has been sold as a “game changer.” None have changed the fundamentals of the war but each has narrowed the space for diplomacy while increasing the chances of miscalculation.
The risk, as you underscore, is that this will not just fail to alter the ground war, but could draw Europe into a catastrophic wider conflict. A sober assessment would recognize that Tomahawks cannot deliver victory for Ukraine but they can very easily deliver disaster for everyone.
The Trump Administration wants to run with the hares (We are honest brokers and want to end the war) and to hunt with the hounds (We are co-belligerents in this war - Go Ukraine). The degree of flip flopping and lack of strategic direction is dizzying. Trump and his Administration are incapable of strategic consistency, and are incompetent in accessing the possible outcomes of their policies. In this they are egged on by the European Liberal elites - so there are no adults in the room on the Western side. This is delusional and dangerous. The only winner will be China at this rate.
No; Putin has been consistent - NO UNCONDITIONAL CEASEFIRE. Fix the peace and then a ceasefire can follow. He and his Government spokespeople has been clear about this ever since mid-2024 when it was first proposed, and he said it in Alaska to Trump. For the Russians, if there was an unconditional ceasefire the Ukrainians would get a rest, and move to more advantageous positions. The Europeans would use the ceasefire to move troops into Ukraine thus NATO troops would be in Ukraine which is the reason the Russians went to war in the first place. This would then allow the Ukrainians to launch a false flag operation at their choosing, starting a war between NATO and Russia, leading evetually to nuclear war.
It is Trump who did not listen in Alaska, or only heard what he wanted to hear. Or someone got to Trump after Alaska (people say that the last person to speak to Trump usually is able to pursued him, which speaks to a weak character flaw). This leads to the Trump strategic inconsistancy which leads to potential misjudgement. If anyone played Trump, it was Trump himself.
Have they forgotten that this weapon system brought the world to the brink of nuclear war? It was the first stealthy first-strike nuclear weapon. Worse, because it is an easy target, it’s a first strike weapon that begs to be used first. NATO placing TLAM-capable launchers directly on Russia’s borders was a key reason Russia resorted to this war against NATO expansion.
How is this war any concern of the US? Between escalation to WWIII and giving Hamas an out with a ridiculous “plan” I have no idea what Trump is up to. Maybe he doesn’t either at this point.
Well, it is Kellog saying this -- and it is clear that he has little real influence on the President. Presumably the Russians have already advised the White House that any US-enabled attack deep in Russia would require a similar Russian attack deep in the continental US -- and that would almost certainly lead to global thermonuclear war.
The obvious question someone should ask Zelensky -- If you escalate by attacking deep into Russia, what do you think the Russian response will be? Are they more likely to surrender ... or to hit back harder?
US military personnel, regardless of where they are stationed, launching missiles at targets deep in Russia is a direct act of war by the USA. Guaranteed that the Russians have gamed out that eventuality and have a response planned.
As it's a direct act of war against Russian sovereign territory, I believe that the Russian response could be commensurate - as in a similar attack on US sovereign territory. At a minimum I would expect Russia to directly target American interests overseas, say the US naval base in Bahrain, for instance.
The article can be summarised with, "What a disappoint Trump is".
Instead of ending the war, he is now escalating it. We laugh at people who claim that it doesn't matter who wins the presidential elections in the US. I guess these people are more right than wrong really.
He isn't escalating. He's been told by the CIA and DOD Russia is just about to collapse. Obviously, there is disinformation involved but that's how it is. Anyway, I think he is more in a bubble now than before he started the 2nd term.
Putin killed his golden goose which was piped natural gas to Europe. China has built huge amounts of natural gas storage infrastructure to go with pipelines from Russia and LNG import terminals…and so China isn’t making the same mistakes Europe made by not having options when Putin inevitably misbehaved. But the American fracking industry came through along with the weather for the first time in history not going Russia’s way and Europe made it through the difficult winters of 2022/23 relatively unscathed.
That industry was always going to end up in America once fracking was proven economical in 2010…it was inevitable. In fact had oil stayed at $100/barrel we were going to transform natural gas into diesel and kerosene…that’s why oil will never return to $100/barrel for any length of time. And that’s why Putin invaded Georgia from a position of strength in 2008 but his invasion of Ukraine was out of desperation.
Transforming gas into diesel, benzene and kerosene is costly. You can just as well liquefy coal - coal is cheap, but electricity needed is not. Besides, fracking is starting being increasingly costly.
Anyway, lots of companies are not leaving EU for the US but for China and India, that now have access to cheap Russian gas and oil. This is why Trump is trying the 50% tariff on India.
Russia doesn’t want to sell its oil and gas cheap! Saudi Arabia wants oil to be $75/barrel which is fine for American frackers but won’t lead to an increase in production. America will continue to increase natural gas production and increase LNG exports. Russia is going to be way behind in LNG exports because of sanctions. Qatar and America and Australia will dominate the LNG market which is why Trump just provided Qatar with a security guarantee…and so with ANZUS that means America is now the Saudi Arabia for the OPEC for LNG. So on some level Putin was correct to act out of desperation but NATO wasn’t the threat it was our LNG alliance that poses the greatest threat to Russia.
Storm shadows have way better capabilites and smaller radar cross sections and maybe 10% get through russian AD. Tomahawks would be an escalation mostly on paper.
Drones get through more because they are massivley more stealthy and numerous, with the caveat of small warheads.
For all the claims that Ukraine is punishing Russian infrastructure, particularly refineries, the fact is that the price for fuel in Russia does not reflect any shortages.
The price for diesel and car gas has risen on average about 1-2% only over the last three months. The year over year increase is about 8%, which is virtually identical to the inflation rate in Russia for the same period.
To take a longer term view, in 2015 regular grade car gas cost about 35 rubles per litre, and today it costs about 60 rubles. That increase is less than Russia's inflation rate. There is no indication that Ukraine has caused significant losses in supply. (60 rubles per litre is less than US$3 per gallon.)
The US should adopt a “gloves off” policy when it comes to ending this terrible war, which Russia and only Russia started. Why should Ukraine not have the right to defend itself when Russia is striking Ukraine night after night with ballistic missiles and hundreds of drones, targeting civilian infrastructure indiscriminately?
Zelensky has made clear he is willing to relinquish territory for peace…but this war was never about territory. This war has always been about Putin removing Zelensky and installing a puppet regime to control Ukraine as a vassal state of the Russian Empire.
" The US is poised to “sell” Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. US special envoy to Ukraine, retired general Keith Kellogg, says only the final decision has to be made. The US has already agreed, Kellogg said, for deep attacks on Russian territory "
-what could go wrong? (ooops I see Unset already said this!)
US military personal directly attacking Russia - what could go wrong? The level of neocon warmongering we've seen is truly breathtaking.
That is because they are morons. All of this stuff... What is NATO today? How wrong did that idea turn out to be????
This is insane.
Nikki Haley has said that there was always a 5% chance Trump would use nukes against our enemies which allows him to gain leverage in negotiations. So the closest the world came to nuclear armageddon was when China believed Trump might nuke them after he lost the 2020 election and Milley had to calm China’s fears.
If they are approved and actually used, it will all surely lead to WW3. Russia has been deceived two many times by Minsk 1 and 2 and many other broken promises since the fall of the Soviet Union and WILL NOT alter its official position with regard to the war in the Ukraine and what is required to stop it. That includes Tomahawk missiles. WW3 will result.
Some analysts argue we are already in WW3.
Not really. Providing weapons doesn't count as war. Same as secret commandos. Otherwise, Qatar would be in hot war with Israel. You have to differentiate between casus belli and the actual hot war.
Imagine the Russians would deliver anti ship missiles to Iran or Venezuela and strike American aircraft carriers....
IIRC the sorties against Venezuela or Iran didn't start from carriers. Sure, Russians could supply modern AD systems to Iran. Then Israel would start helping Ukraine in earnest (which it doesn't do now). The Patriot system (which USA was buying back) was already not that reliable during the first Gulf war, and doesn't seem to be that good now. If it were that superior, Israelis would have made lots of noise of not wanting to give it up.
All the Russian needs to do is provide some anti ship missiles to the Houthis. Quid pro quo, my friend.
So far, Israel is not sharing its technology with Ukraine. Moreover, because EU getting more and more hostile to Israel, at some point it will start seriously triangulating. If Russians wanted to cause pain to US, Venezuela and Cuba (and now even Colombia) are better targets of help.
EU is crazy going after Russia and now Israel too.
The prospect of sending Tomahawks to Ukraine is not just reckless, it is an open invitation to escalation with Russia. As you rightly note, these weapons were never intended for tactical battlefield use but for strategic strikes deep inside an adversary’s territory. That makes them uniquely provocative, since their deployment will be seen by Moscow as a direct US military intervention, no matter how Washington tries to frame it.
A few complementary points stand out. First, the very nature of the Tomahawk blurs the line between conventional and nuclear war. Russia’s doctrine has always treated long-range cruise missiles as potential nuclear delivery systems. That means every launch risks misinterpretation, an incredibly dangerous situation when two nuclear superpowers are already at the brink.
Second, this decision reflects the hubris of US policymakers who believe Russia’s economy is on the verge of collapse. In reality, Russia has weathered years of sanctions, restructured its economy, and found new markets across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Strikes on infrastructure may be painful, but they have also spurred Russian resilience and innovation. Assuming that Tomahawks could “seal the deal” on regime change is a misreading of both Russian capacity and political culture.
Finally, the move highlights a deeper problem. Washington’s addiction to tactical escalation as a substitute for strategic vision. Each new weapons transfer such as HIMARS, Storm Shadows, ATACMS, F-16s, and now potentially Tomahawks has been sold as a “game changer.” None have changed the fundamentals of the war but each has narrowed the space for diplomacy while increasing the chances of miscalculation.
The risk, as you underscore, is that this will not just fail to alter the ground war, but could draw Europe into a catastrophic wider conflict. A sober assessment would recognize that Tomahawks cannot deliver victory for Ukraine but they can very easily deliver disaster for everyone.
The Trump Administration wants to run with the hares (We are honest brokers and want to end the war) and to hunt with the hounds (We are co-belligerents in this war - Go Ukraine). The degree of flip flopping and lack of strategic direction is dizzying. Trump and his Administration are incapable of strategic consistency, and are incompetent in accessing the possible outcomes of their policies. In this they are egged on by the European Liberal elites - so there are no adults in the room on the Western side. This is delusional and dangerous. The only winner will be China at this rate.
I think the flip happened when Putin Played Trump in Alaska. A big mistake.
No; Putin has been consistent - NO UNCONDITIONAL CEASEFIRE. Fix the peace and then a ceasefire can follow. He and his Government spokespeople has been clear about this ever since mid-2024 when it was first proposed, and he said it in Alaska to Trump. For the Russians, if there was an unconditional ceasefire the Ukrainians would get a rest, and move to more advantageous positions. The Europeans would use the ceasefire to move troops into Ukraine thus NATO troops would be in Ukraine which is the reason the Russians went to war in the first place. This would then allow the Ukrainians to launch a false flag operation at their choosing, starting a war between NATO and Russia, leading evetually to nuclear war.
It is Trump who did not listen in Alaska, or only heard what he wanted to hear. Or someone got to Trump after Alaska (people say that the last person to speak to Trump usually is able to pursued him, which speaks to a weak character flaw). This leads to the Trump strategic inconsistancy which leads to potential misjudgement. If anyone played Trump, it was Trump himself.
Have they forgotten that this weapon system brought the world to the brink of nuclear war? It was the first stealthy first-strike nuclear weapon. Worse, because it is an easy target, it’s a first strike weapon that begs to be used first. NATO placing TLAM-capable launchers directly on Russia’s borders was a key reason Russia resorted to this war against NATO expansion.
How is this war any concern of the US? Between escalation to WWIII and giving Hamas an out with a ridiculous “plan” I have no idea what Trump is up to. Maybe he doesn’t either at this point.
Trump is just stroking his narcissistic megalomania.
Spoken like a true TDS victim
My impression is Donald is doing trial and error - see what works and what doesn't...
Well, it is Kellog saying this -- and it is clear that he has little real influence on the President. Presumably the Russians have already advised the White House that any US-enabled attack deep in Russia would require a similar Russian attack deep in the continental US -- and that would almost certainly lead to global thermonuclear war.
The obvious question someone should ask Zelensky -- If you escalate by attacking deep into Russia, what do you think the Russian response will be? Are they more likely to surrender ... or to hit back harder?
US military personnel, regardless of where they are stationed, launching missiles at targets deep in Russia is a direct act of war by the USA. Guaranteed that the Russians have gamed out that eventuality and have a response planned.
As it's a direct act of war against Russian sovereign territory, I believe that the Russian response could be commensurate - as in a similar attack on US sovereign territory. At a minimum I would expect Russia to directly target American interests overseas, say the US naval base in Bahrain, for instance.
Lots of US assets in Europe, too.
Great idea! So we're fixing the climate issue with a nuclear winter!
what a brilliant idea. It will be interesting to watch the outcome, if it is not just worlds ofcourse
The article can be summarised with, "What a disappoint Trump is".
Instead of ending the war, he is now escalating it. We laugh at people who claim that it doesn't matter who wins the presidential elections in the US. I guess these people are more right than wrong really.
He isn't escalating. He's been told by the CIA and DOD Russia is just about to collapse. Obviously, there is disinformation involved but that's how it is. Anyway, I think he is more in a bubble now than before he started the 2nd term.
Putin killed his golden goose which was piped natural gas to Europe. China has built huge amounts of natural gas storage infrastructure to go with pipelines from Russia and LNG import terminals…and so China isn’t making the same mistakes Europe made by not having options when Putin inevitably misbehaved. But the American fracking industry came through along with the weather for the first time in history not going Russia’s way and Europe made it through the difficult winters of 2022/23 relatively unscathed.
Chemical industry and Metal industry are leaving W Europe. What's unscathed about it?
That industry was always going to end up in America once fracking was proven economical in 2010…it was inevitable. In fact had oil stayed at $100/barrel we were going to transform natural gas into diesel and kerosene…that’s why oil will never return to $100/barrel for any length of time. And that’s why Putin invaded Georgia from a position of strength in 2008 but his invasion of Ukraine was out of desperation.
Transforming gas into diesel, benzene and kerosene is costly. You can just as well liquefy coal - coal is cheap, but electricity needed is not. Besides, fracking is starting being increasingly costly.
Anyway, lots of companies are not leaving EU for the US but for China and India, that now have access to cheap Russian gas and oil. This is why Trump is trying the 50% tariff on India.
Russia doesn’t want to sell its oil and gas cheap! Saudi Arabia wants oil to be $75/barrel which is fine for American frackers but won’t lead to an increase in production. America will continue to increase natural gas production and increase LNG exports. Russia is going to be way behind in LNG exports because of sanctions. Qatar and America and Australia will dominate the LNG market which is why Trump just provided Qatar with a security guarantee…and so with ANZUS that means America is now the Saudi Arabia for the OPEC for LNG. So on some level Putin was correct to act out of desperation but NATO wasn’t the threat it was our LNG alliance that poses the greatest threat to Russia.
Storm shadows have way better capabilites and smaller radar cross sections and maybe 10% get through russian AD. Tomahawks would be an escalation mostly on paper.
Drones get through more because they are massivley more stealthy and numerous, with the caveat of small warheads.
For all the claims that Ukraine is punishing Russian infrastructure, particularly refineries, the fact is that the price for fuel in Russia does not reflect any shortages.
The price for diesel and car gas has risen on average about 1-2% only over the last three months. The year over year increase is about 8%, which is virtually identical to the inflation rate in Russia for the same period.
To take a longer term view, in 2015 regular grade car gas cost about 35 rubles per litre, and today it costs about 60 rubles. That increase is less than Russia's inflation rate. There is no indication that Ukraine has caused significant losses in supply. (60 rubles per litre is less than US$3 per gallon.)
https://fuelprices.ru/en/cfo/moskva
The US should adopt a “gloves off” policy when it comes to ending this terrible war, which Russia and only Russia started. Why should Ukraine not have the right to defend itself when Russia is striking Ukraine night after night with ballistic missiles and hundreds of drones, targeting civilian infrastructure indiscriminately?
Because the Donbass had always been Russian and they were attacked by Kiev. Only noobs can't see this.
Zelensky has made clear he is willing to relinquish territory for peace…but this war was never about territory. This war has always been about Putin removing Zelensky and installing a puppet regime to control Ukraine as a vassal state of the Russian Empire.
" The US is poised to “sell” Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. US special envoy to Ukraine, retired general Keith Kellogg, says only the final decision has to be made. The US has already agreed, Kellogg said, for deep attacks on Russian territory "
-what could go wrong? (ooops I see Unset already said this!)