【Text by Anton Neman, Translation by Xue Kaihuan】
After meeting with Trump with high expectations, Zelenskyy left disappointed.
Because Trump clearly stated that the U.S. will not provide Ukraine with the long-range missiles it seeks that can strike deep into Russian territory, which could further escalate the situation.
But Trump's words were still hesitant. One reason is fear of Russia's fierce reaction, and the other is because he understands the complexity of the technology related to missile launches. Providing "Tomahawk" missiles to Ukraine would certainly escalate the situation, but if the benefits (for Trump, this means an opportunity to get Putin and Zelenskyy to the negotiation table) outweigh the risks (such as Russia eventually completely withdrawing from negotiations, and in response, using more dangerous weapons in Ukraine), then Trump could make up his mind to implement it. However, if the situation were reversed, according to Trump's usual style, it's nothing new for him to go back on his promises.
However, in my opinion, the technical characteristics and limitations of the "Tomahawk" missiles are unlikely to make these expectations come true. Even if the United States ultimately fulfills its commitment to provide Ukraine with "Tomahawk" missiles, it is more of a hidden intention. The target may not be Russia or Ukraine itself, but rather "Trump's desire to exert pressure."
What is the "Tomahawk" missile?
In the initial development phase (late 1970s), the "Tomahawk" missile was far less accurate than today. It was primarily designed to carry nuclear warheads, with only anti-ship variants equipped with conventional warheads and ship targeting radar. In the late 1980s, a new navigation system improved the accuracy of the "Tomahawk" missile, giving rise to conventional warhead variants capable of striking ground targets. However, in 1987, the U.S. and Russia signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which prohibited both sides from deploying and using land-based strategic missiles. As a result, the U.S. Navy became the sole user of the "Tomahawk" missile for 30 years.
"Tomahawk" missile. Russia Satellite Communications Agency
In 2019, the U.S. and Russia accused each other of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and initiated the process of withdrawal. The U.S. then began developing mobile "Tomahawk" launchers for the Army and Marines: the Army equipped with multi-axle trailers that can carry four missiles, and the Marines with single-cabin trucks (this project was terminated in 2025). As of 2025, two sets of launchers have been deployed in the Pacific region by the U.S. Army.
The core advantages of the "Tomahawk" missile are concentrated in three aspects: first, range, although there is no public data, the range of the "Tomahawk" is estimated to be around 1500-2000 kilometers. Second, the warhead, weighing about 450 kilograms, can penetrate reinforced concrete. Third, anti-electronic warfare capability, it has multiple guidance systems and does not rely on a single satellite navigation system.
Among the weapons currently used by Ukraine, the European-made "Storm Shadow" cruise missile has a range of only about 300 kilometers, far less than the 1500-2000 kilometers of the "Tomahawk". Although Ukraine produces large quantities of long-range drones, their performance differs significantly from the "Tomahawk": the drone's warhead weighs only dozens of kilograms, much less powerful than the "Tomahawk", and its speed is only a fraction of the "Tomahawk" (the "Tomahawk" flies at a speed close to a civilian aircraft).
Russia uses similar missiles such as the "Kalibr" and "Iskander-K" in its operations against Ukraine, but these weapons have insufficient reconnaissance accuracy and cannot achieve maximum destructive effects. If U.S. intelligence wants to help Ukraine use long-range strategic missiles efficiently, it needs a large number of launch devices, but due to the production capacity of the launch devices, this prerequisite is difficult to meet at present. Authorities have listed some potential Russian targets (such as Russian military industry facilities and airbases), but drones, due to their weak warhead power, cannot destroy the concrete shelters of such targets.
Evidently, if the U.S. provides a large number of "Tomahawk" missiles and launch devices to Ukraine, it might help Ukraine change the battlefield situation to some extent; however, given the limited production capacity of the launch devices, loudly declaring the intention to provide "Tomahawk" missiles to Ukraine is more of a political trick by Trump, rather than an effective means to counter Russia.
For many years, Russia has been extremely sensitive to the threat of NATO deploying long-range strategic weapons near its borders. This kind of threat, such as the long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads deployed by the U.S. in Eastern Europe, is an important part of Russia's narrative about the root cause of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, and the outbreak of the conflict was Russia's attempt to resolve this issue.
Regarding this, the spokesperson for the Russian President, Peskov, emphasized "Russia's concerns": "These weapons are special; they may be non-nuclear or nuclear." Putin also said this represents a "new upgrade" in the situation.
On October 10th local time, Russian President Putin stated at a press conference that if the U.S. provides "Tomahawk" cruise missiles to Ukraine, Russia will strengthen its air defense system in response.
Given the limited production capacity of the U.S. launch devices and the fact that Russia has equivalent response capabilities, Russia is actually not truly afraid of a preemptive nuclear strike by Ukraine. The West cannot provide Kiev with enough complete missiles (including launch devices) to completely change the course of the war.
However, Putin can use the "Tomahawk" missile as an excuse to escalate the confrontation with the West. In today's world where the deterrence mechanism has failed, this situation is particularly dangerous: a few months ago, despite having hundreds of ballistic missiles specifically designed for "deterrence," Israel failed to prevent its opponent Iran from launching a large-scale attack, and Iran's retaliatory attack was not prevented by Israel's hundreds of nuclear warheads.
While discussions about the "Tomahawk" missile are heating up, some media quietly reported on a "Ukrainian indigenous" missile, which is said to be developed by Ukrainian engineers using technology transferred from Britain. This is a "plain and simple" missile, made of cheap materials, equipped with the guidance system of the old missile "flying according to the map." I think this missile is much more powerful than the "Tomahawk," which is only loud in the media.
Why did the Kyiv authorities choose to "make" missiles at this time? There are three reasons. First, it is low-cost, with one missile estimated to cost around $50,000. Second, producing missiles domestically means that the Kyiv authorities do not need to be restricted by the West in their use. Third, this missile can be mass-produced and is easy to produce. It is reported that Kyiv was impressed by Hamas' experience of skillfully using missiles without relying on modern facilities and wants to replicate this "success."
Certainly, the media often ignores such unremarkable news and easily sees it as another clown act by the Kyiv authorities. But I don't think so. This may sound contradictory, but in reality, Russia can quickly solve the "Tomahawk" missile issue, while the domestically produced missiles by Ukraine are the bigger problem. These "old man" missiles will bring more losses to Russia due to their production capacity and cost. No missile defense system can cope with the simultaneous launch of hundreds of missiles. Just a simple calculation: hundreds of missiles have a 50-60% chance of being shot down, 10-20% will fail to hit the target due to technical reasons, what about the rest? These are not small drones. The effective payload of the missile is quite powerful, capable of carrying hundreds or thousands of kilograms of explosives.
Therefore, this is the most straightforward reason why I believe the "Tomahawk" missile is a political trick by Trump: compared to the recent Ukrainian indigenous missiles, the actual deterrence the "Tomahawk" missile brings to Russia is far less than what is publicly claimed.
Trump's "TACO"
Whether the "Tomahawk" missile has a deterrent effect depends on Trump's attitude. And it is well known that Trump has repeatedly shown "backing down" after making harsh statements, which has become a common occurrence. Americans even gave this behavior a mocking name "TACO" (Trump always chicken out).
As expected, as mentioned at the beginning of the article, after scolding Zelenskyy, Trump's attitude also became vague. So, what was the purpose of Trump's previous loud claims about the role of the "Tomahawk" missile?
I'll start with a simple fact. This fact is actually obvious, but paradoxically, it is almost unrelated to Ukraine. In fact, Trump has long planned to deploy intermediate-range missiles in Europe and Ukraine. Don't be surprised, this is not my speculation, but a real fact. It was something Trump wanted to push during his first term.
Do you remember the end of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty? Trump officially withdrew from the treaty during his first term. Why? For the U.S., the Russian counter-deterrence against missiles does not pose a threat to itself. The treaty actually "protects" Europe. Does this mean that Trump has 100% confidence in the effectiveness of the NATO anti-missile system deployed in Europe?
The only logic that can barely explain the U.S. action is that they want to deploy their own intermediate-range missiles near Europe to compensate for the aging of their strategic nuclear forces and to test the U.S. nuclear deterrence capability. Trump clearly knows that the Kyiv authorities, when cornered, are willing to do anything to create trouble for Putin and the entire Russia, and they are the best and free "test subjects" for testing the U.S. nuclear deterrence. The U.S. is like a casino dealer who lends a desperate gambler a large amount of chips, encouraging him to gamble with another gambler. The dealer holds the bottom card, and no matter the outcome, he can find out the opponent's hand, and that crazy gambler is just a disposable tool in his hands.
The Pentagon is well aware of the various defects of the "Tomahawk" missile, but in Trump's view, if the missile is handed over to Zelenskyy, there are two major advantages. The first advantage is straightforward: attacking Russian territory targets with such missiles will inevitably provoke a fierce retaliation, and this retaliation will become a powerful bargaining chip to force Ukraine to negotiate. The second advantage is related to the political trick of the "nuclear deterrence line," and the U.S. has repeatedly crossed Russia's red lines and is continuously testing its deterrence.
The logic behind this is more intriguing: the U.S. provides missiles to Kyiv and has not deliberately concealed it, and Russia will eventually find out. Then, will there be a fierce retaliation, or will there be no further action, letting the missiles silently remain somewhere in Ukraine? What will happen in the end, the U.S. wants to see a result.
On October 16th, after a phone call with Putin, Trump decided not to provide Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. Reuters
Will Russia be forced to accept another "red line" being crossed? If supplying missiles to Ukraine does not trigger retaliation, will deploying strategic weapons in Europe also be met with retaliation? This is exactly what the U.S. wants to find out, and it is also the subsequent goal of the U.S. exiting the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Moreover, it's not just that, since the U.S. can provide "Tomahawk" missiles to Ukraine, why not provide other short-range and intermediate-range missiles? Why not deploy the "Dark Eagle" hypersonic missiles within the EU territory? The "Dark Eagle" missile has a range of more than 2000 kilometers. In the context of the tense situation between Europe and Russia, this will greatly worsen the security environment in Europe and allow the U.S. to continue its strategy of letting Europe fight among itself.
The "Tomahawk" missile is equipped with W80 warheads, which can carry thermonuclear warheads with yields ranging from 0.2 tons to 15 tons. Russia has repeatedly warned that any missile aimed at Russian territory will be considered a nuclear missile. This may be exactly Trump's goal: to continue escalating tensions in Europe, weaken Russia, or let Europe continue to provide aid to Ukraine, as the instability in the European continent benefits American interests.
Moreover, the Pentagon and the U.S. military-industrial complex also hope to test the "Tomahawk" missile in "real combat." Here, the U.S. military has two ideas: the first is to test their ability to penetrate the missile defense systems of major powers (here refers to Russia, but the U.S. obviously doesn't consider only Russia as a hypothetical enemy). The second is to disrupt the European security situation, continue selling arms to Europe, and provide new practical data for the development of the U.S. military-industrial complex.
At first glance, this seems like a very contradictory path. However, Trump can take actions that contradict his position without any psychological burden, say absurd things, and even contradict himself several times in a day. This is no longer surprising. And it is well known that Ukraine has long been a testing ground for new weapon systems and special forces from various countries. Therefore, this is completely logical. Some political observers believe that the Russian army should use its most advanced missile defense systems to deal with the U.S. missile attacks that have not yet been disclosed. Given the continuous escalation of the European conflict, this is indeed crucial.
Conclusion
All of these are my reasonable speculations, which have been expressed in media and analysis reports either explicitly or implicitly. At the same time, I believe that the decision-makers of the main countries must have understood this issue. I don't know what other observers or readers think, but the main issue now is that under Trump's administration, the U.S. will definitely continue to play this seemingly ridiculous but very dangerous extreme pressure game. Once it goes too far and triggers Russia's retaliation, the situation will be very dangerous.
The U.S. and Russia have been playing a game over the so-called "red lines" for a long time. Although Russia has repeatedly stated in verbal expressions that the "red lines" are inviolable boundaries, and that crossing them will lead to retaliation and punishment, in reality, Russia has not really taken any retaliatory actions regarding the "red lines," which has stimulated the risk-taking mentality of people like Trump. However, Russia is not really incapable of taking retaliatory actions, and it can be said that the outbreak of the Ukraine-Russia conflict itself was Russia's final backlash against NATO's eastward expansion. Why is Trump daring to gamble on Putin's inability to give him a deep lesson with his "little thug" mentality?
Actually, we may have misunderstood Trump. His actions may not be "TACO," on the contrary, he is intoxicated by the excitement and sense of control brought by his "art of deals." He sees himself as a "genius merchant" who never loses money, believing that he can harvest the maximum benefit through a series of dangerous and despicable extortion at the last moment. This makes him lose his reverence for the bottom line. The reason he dares to play with fire without hesitation is that he fundamentally does not believe, or refuses to believe, that he will burn himself.
That's why, in the international political arena, some "clowns" dare to act recklessly, like Trump, or politicians from the Baltic states. If politicians forget the importance of "doing things with proper limits," they should ask border guards, small merchants, and farmers, asking them whether they are willing to become victims of extreme pressure games.
This article is an exclusive article by Observer, and the content is purely the author's personal opinion, not representing the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, otherwise legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow the Observer WeChat account guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7563486112266584618/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author, and we welcome your opinions in the 【top/down】 buttons below.