The U.S. plans to strike Moscow with Tomahawk missiles: Putin has five response options.

US Plans to Strike Moscow with "Tomahawk" Missiles: Putin Has Five Countermeasures, None of Which Will Satisfy Trump

The stakes of the war are rising. In August, the US government approved the sale of 3,300 new ERAM missiles to Ukraine, which have a range of 450 kilometers, enough to cover areas in Russia such as Belgorod, Kursk, Bryansk, and Rostov-on-Don. The purchase of these missiles is funded by European countries, and the first batch is expected to arrive in Ukraine soon. Now, the focus has shifted to the more far-reaching and dangerous "Tomahawk" missiles - with a range of 1,600 to 2,500 kilometers, meaning the entire European part of Russia would be within striking distance! How will Russia respond? Experts have proposed five options, and it is likely that Vladimir Putin himself will choose one of them in the near future.

Former U.S. President's special representative Kit Kellogg stated on Fox News Channel that regarding whether the Trump administration would allow strikes on the heartland of Russia: "Considering Trump's statements, as well as the remarks from Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio, my answer is yes, (we allow Ukraine) to take this opportunity to strike the heartland of Russia."

Former U.S. President's special representative Kellogg claimed that the United States does not prohibit Ukraine from attacking the heartland of Russian territory.

He added that there are "no inviolable areas" in Russia, but did not explicitly state whether the use of American weapons for such strikes was allowed. Kellogg believes that Vladimir Zelensky's request for "Tomahawk" long-range missiles is likely related to this.

So how will Russia respond? At the official level, Russia's response has been extremely cautious. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said when asked about the issue: "We have noticed these statements and are conducting close analysis: There is currently no 'magic pill' that can change the situation on the front line. For the Kyiv authorities, there is no so-called 'magic weapon'. Whether it is the 'Tomahawk' missile or other types of missiles, none can change the direction of the current conflict. The key point is that we need to clarify who will launch the 'Tomahawk' missiles from Ukrainian territory - Americans or Ukrainians themselves."

It can be seen that there is a difference in "who will carry out the strike," but there is no particular reason for Russia to worry.

Should We Fear America's "Tomahawk"?

The standard configuration "Tomahawk" missile has a range of 1,600 kilometers, and some improved models (such as Block II) have a range of up to 2,500 kilometers. This missile flies at a speed of approximately 880 kilometers per hour, although not hypersonic, it still has a relatively fast speed. Its flight path is low, allowing it to avoid radar detection along the terrain. The warhead is usually a fragmentation-explosive warhead of 450 kilograms, and there are also cluster warheads, concrete penetration warheads, and penetrating warheads. However, the "Tomahawk" missile does not carry a nuclear warhead.

Another point to note: previously, the "Tomahawk" missile was mainly launched from U.S. Navy surface ships and nuclear submarines.

"Tomahawk" BGM-109 missile, screenshot from the website of the U.S. "Military Observer" magazine

Yuri Knutov, military expert and historian of the air defense forces from "Tsargrad" newspaper, introduced: "Recently, the United States developed the 'Typhoon' land-based launch system for the 'Tomahawk' missile, which is clearly planned to be used in Ukraine."

However, the Belgian military media "Army Awareness" pointed out that there are serious problems with the delivery of the "Typhoon" system:

Screenshot from the "Army Awareness" website (auto-translated)

The media stated that on one hand, the "Typhoon" system itself is insufficient in quantity, and there is a shortage of operators, and the problem of how to train personnel has not been resolved. But when the United States delivered the "Patriot" air defense system to Ukraine, similar problems were faced - and yet, it was eventually delivered!

Now, the "Patriot" system is being used to intercept Russian drones and missiles. More importantly, these systems are operated by U.S. officers, even if it is just remote operation. It is speculated that the "Typhoon" system is likely to be operated by Americans, and the missile flight mission setting will also be handled by the U.S. side - this has been verified in the use of the "HIMARS" rocket artillery.

However, Yuri Knutov believes that the "Tomahawk" missile, although having a long range, is an old generation weapon, with technical level similar to F-16 fighter jets. Previously, Ukraine had high expectations for the delivery of F-16s, believing that they could completely change the battlefield, but it turned out otherwise. Experts believe that the "Tomahawk" missile will face the same fate.

Military expert Alexei Leontev said: "As early as 1991, Iraqi 'Tomahawk' missiles were intercepted by the Soviet 'Buk' air defense system - there were successful cases of both head-on interception and tail chasing. Eventually, the combat effectiveness of the 'Tomahawk' missile dropped from 90% to 65%."

In 1999, the Yugoslav air defense forces and air force also successfully intercepted 'Tomahawk' missiles, using the Soviet 'Square', 'Arrow-1', and 'Arrow-10' air defense systems extensively, which further reduced the combat effectiveness of the 'Tomahawk' to 55%.

Yuri Knutov believes: "The first solution to deal with the 'Tomahawk' missile, and the most obvious one, is to strengthen our air defense capabilities. We have already mastered the technology to intercept 'HIMARS' rockets, 'Storm Shadow' cruise missiles, and 'Scalp' cruise missiles. I believe that within one or two months, we can develop effective tactics to counter the 'Tomahawk' missile."

Kellogg's "explanation" directly implies allowing the use of "Tomahawk" missiles to strike "the heartland of Russia" // Screenshot from Fox News website (auto-translated)

He further pointed out that another issue is whether Russia's own air defense equipment is sufficient - in his words, "there is currently a shortage of air defense equipment." There is no reliable air defense barrier that can "cover everything and intercept all targets," not even Israel's "Iron Dome" system can do that.

Knutov warned: "It is clear that the Ukrainian armed forces will first strike our military airports, defense industry enterprises, oil refineries, pipelines, and energy facilities. If the 'Tomahawk' missiles are used on a large scale, we will face serious challenges in the initial weeks."

According to the presidential decree dated August 4, 2004, "On Approving the List of Strategic Enterprises and Strategic Shares," Russia currently has 1,063 strategic enterprises, not including railway stations, airports, military units, oil refineries, and other infrastructure (such as water supply plants, power plants, thermal power plants, etc.). Therefore, on one hand, it is impossible to bring Russia back to the "Stone Age" with just the "Tomahawk" missiles; on the other hand, they can indeed cause serious problems.

The area around Moscow is equipped with three layers of air defense rings, but the border regions such as Belgorod, Bryansk, and Rostov do not have such protection. The front-line air defense systems that theoretically can provide support are already operating at nearly full capacity around the clock, even without the threat of the "Tomahawk." Therefore, the option of "resisting attacks as before" is not feasible and unreliable. The possibility of Ukraine launching attacks on the border areas of Russia and even further regions (such as Krasnodar Krai, Tatarstan Republic, and Saratov Oblast) is entirely possible.

Turning Ukraine into Ruins?

The second solution to respond to the "Tomahawk" missile strikes is to implement stricter strikes on Ukraine's transportation infrastructure.

Yuri Knutov believes: "We have not yet struck bridges and railway stations in Ukraine, perhaps because we hope to use these facilities ourselves later. As a response to the deployment of 'Tomahawk' missiles, we can completely destroy Ukraine's infrastructure, making it impossible for the Ukrainian armed forces to resist. For example, destroying all bridges over the Dnieper River, cutting off the reinforcement routes for the Ukrainian armed forces."

This expert explained that the problem is that even with Russia's most advanced missiles, it is extremely difficult to destroy bridges - you must strike the supporting structures of the bridge.

To hit the supporting structures, you need to install specialized radio beacons on the target for precise guidance, which means sending reconnaissance and sabotage teams to perform the task. But this task is very difficult because the Ukrainian armed forces have strong defenses around the bridges. If you strike the deck of the bridge as usual, the Ukrainian side can repair it within a week or two, and the bridge will quickly be restored to traffic.

Moreover, the idea of "bringing Ukraine back to the Stone Age" itself cannot deter the West: "Although you bomb, although you consume your resources - we want to wear you down through this war."

In fact, the longer the Russia-Ukraine conflict lasts, the more beneficial it is for those "European hawkish" factions. They are not hiding their intentions, preparing for a full-scale war with Russia in five years - this is clearly written in the so-called "2030 readiness" strategy "White Paper," which explicitly lists Russia as the main opponent in Europe.

Experts believe that the third solution - symmetric response - is more reasonable, effective, and symmetrical, i.e., deploying Russia's "Yasen-M" class nuclear submarines equipped with "Zircon" missiles near the U.S. coast.

Knutov explained: "On one hand, the 'Zircon' missile is similar to the 'Tomahawk' - with a range of 2,000 kilometers, and a warhead weight of half a ton. But there are also key differences: the 'Zircon' can reach 9 Mach (about 11,000 kilometers per hour), and such a missile cannot be intercepted at all."

Dmitry Zhuravlev, candidate of political science and director of the Institute of Regional Issues, added: "This move will be a heavy blow to Trump. He will find it hard to explain to voters why because of Ukraine, Americans face a deadly threat from Russia."

Trump's situation is already not optimistic. According to data from "Newsweek," Trump's approval rating in September was only 39%, while the opposition rate reached 57%. Russia can certainly take advantage of his unstable position. Moreover, Trump will face congressional elections next year. If the Republicans lose the election, he will become a "lame duck" again, like in his first term - nominally in power, but unable to implement any policies, and all initiatives will be rejected by the legislators.

The fourth solution: nuclear deterrence.

Zhuravlev pointed out: "The 'Zircon' missile can carry a nuclear warhead. If we announce that nuclear weapons that cannot be defended are now deployed near the U.S. coast, this will become a powerful bargaining chip. What Americans fear most is a nuclear war with Russia - this is actually their biggest fear."

However, the threat of a nuclear strike itself means "escalating the Ukraine conflict," which may quickly lead to the edge of a third world war. And Russia has always been committed to avoiding the escalation of the conflict (this is well known).

The fifth solution to respond to the "Tomahawk" missile is to strike the logistics hubs on its transport route, such as the city of Rzeszów in Poland. Many people have been eager to "teach this arrogant base a lesson." Unfortunately, the West is precisely waiting for Russia to do so.

Rostislav Iseynko, political scientist and director of the Center for System Analysis and Forecasting, said: "For example, Britain is urgently hoping to start a large-scale war in Europe, thus thoroughly uniting the European continent against Russia, more importantly, bringing the United States back into the anti-Russia alliance, and making it play the role of 'main sponsor' again."

Even conventional missile mutual strikes will only prolong the duration of the Ukraine conflict. Additionally, all valuable assets in Ukraine have already been bought by Americans.

What Are the Consequences?

Providing "Tomahawk" missiles to Ukraine will undoubtedly push the Ukraine conflict into a new, much more dangerous stage. The special military operation that has not yet directly affected many Russians will become a reality. The war will truly enter the homes of all cities in Russia - just like it has already come to the lives of residents in Belgorod, Kursk, and Rostov-on-Don.

The response to the United States providing "Tomahawk" missiles to Ukraine must be both firm and prudent, ideally also unexpected. How to severely strike Trump while not putting Russia in a passive position - this is a difficult but necessary task for the Russian military and political leadership. Otherwise, things will not stop at "Tomahawk" missiles alone. For example, the United States is currently developing the X-51A "Waverider" hypersonic cruise missile, and is urgently looking for a place to test it - just like Russia tested the "Kinzhal" missile in Dnipro.

We must curb this attempt from the root, even if it is currently just an initial idea.

Trump no longer seems to want to play the role of a "peacemaker." But regardless of his fluctuating stance, he is essentially a "businessman." If Russia can make the correct response to the provocation of the "Tomahawk" missiles, it may once again push Trump out of the anti-Russia alliance. He must understand that personal involvement in this war is meaningless, and it will only make his situation worse.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7556171398033572393/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author and others. Please express your opinion by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.