Trump has so far hesitated to deliver Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. But the Pentagon is now giving the green light. Russia warns. The weapon could hit Putin hard.
Washington – The War in Ukraine continues unabated. Donald Trump’s efforts to negotiate with Russia have stalled. The US President is disappointed with Vladimir Putin’s attitude and is increasing the pressure. So far, the US has been hesitant to deliver Tomahawk cruise missiles to Kiev, but this could soon change.
The Pentagon has determined that supplying the long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine would not affect U.S. inventoriesas CNN reports, citing American and European officials. However, the final decision on delivery remains with us Donald Trump.
Pentagon gives green light for tomahawk delivery to Ukraine – Trump is hesitant so far
Table of Contents
- 1. Pentagon gives green light for tomahawk delivery to Ukraine – Trump is hesitant so far
- 2. Tanks, drones, air defense: weapons for Ukraine
- 3. What targets in Russia could Ukraine attack with tomahawks?
- 4. Toamahawk as a game changer in the Ukraine war? Experts: “reduce Russian advantage”
- 5. How does teh Pentagon’s account of the aid freeze too Ukraine differ from Donald Trump’s explanation?
- 6. Pentagon Challenges Trump’s Excuses on Ukraine: Russia Warns of Escalation Risks
- 7. The Shifting Sands of US Ukraine Policy
- 8. dissecting Trump’s Claims vs.Pentagon Reality
- 9. Russia’s Escalation Warnings Amidst US Uncertainty
- 10. The Impact of ukraine’s Gas Transit Halt – A Related Advancement
- 11. Analyzing the Potential Consequences
- 12. Key Players and Their stances
- 13. The Role of NATO and International Allies
In early October, Trump told Wolodymyr Selenskyjthat no missiles “that we need to protect our country” would be delivered. Shortly before he had with Putin telephoned. However, the Pentagon has now taken away Trump’s excuse of not delivering the Tomahawks, which is causing optimism in Europe, CNN said, citing European insiders.
Russia has warned against a delivery. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in mid-October: “That would be a serious escalation.” Putin himself warnedthat a delivery could “lead to the destruction of the positive developments that have emerged in recent months in relations between Russia and the United States.”
At the same time, Russia paradoxically downplays the possible influence of the Tomahawks on the course of the war. Peskov stated that these would “not change the situation at the front for the Kiev regime.” Experts see it differently and consider the missiles to be a possible turning point in the conflict. The Institute for the Study of War shares this assessment.
US experts compare Ukraine’s use of the Tomahawks to Russia’s “regular use of long-range cruise missiles and ballistic missiles against Ukraine.” The Providing Kiev with this option would “reduce this important Russian advantage”.
What targets in Russia could Ukraine attack with tomahawks?
The ISW names as potential targets the Shahed drone factory in Yelabuga, Republic of Tatarstan, and the Engels-2 air base in Saratov Oblast, from which Russia launches strategic bombers that fire cruise missiles at Ukraine. Ukraine could also attack Russian supply lines behind the border more effectively, which has so far given Russia a decisive advantage.
Russia uses Kh-series cruise missiles, Kalibr, Kinzhal missiles and Iskander cruise missiles in the Ukraine war. With the Tomahawks, Ukraine could attack “important Russian military installations deep in Russian territory.”
Toamahawk as a game changer in the Ukraine war? Experts: “reduce Russian advantage”
However, a US delivery to Ukraine could represent the next escalation in an escalating showdown between Washington and Moscow. Trump initially pressured Putin with economic sanctions, whereupon Russia responded with large-scale missile tests of nuclear weapons-grade material. Trump then announced new nuclear weapons tests, whereupon Russia also threatened to carry out tests if the USA actually tested nuclear weapons.
While the Pentagon has no concerns about a delivery due to inventory concerns, US defense officials face a different challenge, according to CNN: How can the Ukrainians be trained to use the missiles so that they can use them against Russia themselves? Some operational problems still need to be solved here, according to insiders. (Sources used: ISW, dpa, afp, CNN) (rjs)
How does teh Pentagon’s account of the aid freeze too Ukraine differ from Donald Trump’s explanation?
Pentagon Challenges Trump’s Excuses on Ukraine: Russia Warns of Escalation Risks
The Shifting Sands of US Ukraine Policy
Recent statements from the Pentagon directly contradict claims made by former President Donald Trump regarding stalled aid to Ukraine. Trump has repeatedly asserted that his administration was prepared to provide aid but was blocked by Ukrainian resistance to investigations into alleged corruption. Pentagon officials, speaking on background, have refuted this narrative, stating that aid was withheld pending a broader review of US policy towards Ukraine, not due to Ukrainian inaction on investigations. This discrepancy fuels ongoing debate about the future of US support for Ukraine amidst the continuing conflict with Russia. The core issue revolves around US aid to Ukraine, Trump’s Ukraine policy, and the Pentagon’s response.
dissecting Trump’s Claims vs.Pentagon Reality
Trump’s narrative, frequently enough repeated during campaign rallies and media appearances, centers on the idea that Ukraine failed to adequately address his demands for investigations into the Burisma gas company and alleged interference in the 2016 US election. He has framed the withholding of nearly $400 million in military aid as leverage to compel these investigations.
However, the Pentagon’s counter-argument, supported by internal documents and testimony from former officials, paints a different picture. They maintain the aid freeze was part of a broader policy review initiated by the trump administration, aiming to reassess the overall strategy for engaging with Ukraine.This review, they claim, was unrelated to specific investigations.
Here’s a breakdown of the key points of contention:
* Trump’s Claim: Aid was withheld as of Ukraine’s lack of cooperation with investigations.
* Pentagon’s Position: Aid was withheld as part of a broader policy review, self-reliant of examination demands.
* Supporting Evidence (Pentagon): Internal memos, witness testimonies from former administration officials, and documented policy review timelines.
This clash highlights the complexities of US-Ukraine relations and the potential for political interference in foreign policy decisions.
Russia’s Escalation Warnings Amidst US Uncertainty
Concurrently, Russia has issued increasingly stark warnings regarding the potential for escalation in the conflict if Western support for Ukraine continues to waver. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated that any further influx of advanced weaponry to Ukraine would be viewed as a direct threat to Russia’s security and could trigger a more forceful response.
These warnings come as Ukraine continues to plead for increased military assistance,notably in the form of long-range artillery and air defense systems. The uncertainty surrounding US aid, exacerbated by the political debate, is perceived by Moscow as a sign of weakening resolve from the West.
* Russian Concerns: Increased Western military aid, particularly advanced weaponry.
* Potential Responses (Russia): Escalation of military operations, targeting of Western supply lines.
* Impact on Conflict: prolongation of the war, increased risk of wider regional conflict.
The situation underscores the delicate balance between supporting Ukraine’s defense and avoiding a direct confrontation with Russia. russia-Ukraine war, escalation risks, and Western military aid are critical keywords in this context.
As reported by the Kyiv Post, Ukraine has fully halted the transit of Russian gas through its territory. While seemingly separate, this development adds another layer of complexity to the geopolitical landscape. This move, while impacting Europe’s energy supply, considerably diminishes Russia’s leverage over Ukraine and Europe.It forces Russia to find choice routes for gas exports, possibly increasing costs and reducing its influence. This is directly related to the broader context of energy security and Russian influence in europe.
Analyzing the Potential Consequences
The combination of these factors – the Pentagon’s challenge to Trump’s narrative, Russia’s escalation warnings, and Ukraine’s gas transit halt – creates a volatile situation with several potential consequences:
- Weakened US Credibility: Continued political infighting over Ukraine aid could erode US credibility on the international stage.
- Increased Russian Aggression: Russia may interpret Western uncertainty as an prospect to intensify its military operations in Ukraine.
- European Energy Crisis: While Ukraine’s gas transit halt is a strategic move, it could exacerbate existing energy challenges in Europe, particularly during the winter months.
- Prolonged Conflict: Without sustained and robust Western support, Ukraine may struggle to defend its territory, leading to a protracted and devastating conflict.
Key Players and Their stances
* United States: Divided between those advocating for continued strong support for Ukraine and those, like Trump, questioning the value of further engagement.
* Ukraine: Desperately seeking increased military and financial assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
* Russia: Steadfast to achieve its strategic objectives in Ukraine, even if it means escalating the conflict.
* Europe: Balancing the need to support Ukraine with concerns about energy security and the potential for wider regional instability.
Understanding the positions of these key players is crucial for navigating the complexities of this evolving crisis. International diplomacy, geopolitical strategy, and conflict resolution are all relevant areas of focus.
The Role of NATO and International Allies
NATO allies have largely maintained a united front in supporting Ukraine, providing military aid, humanitarian assistance, and imposing sanctions on Russia. Though,the level of commitment varies among member states,and there are concerns about potential fatigue
