20 to 50 "Tomahawk" missiles? Do you think that would be enough to get Ukraine off the hook?
There may have been a significant breakthrough in the U.S. and Ukraine's contacts regarding whether to provide "Tomahawk" missiles.
Recently, the British media, Financial Times, quoted sources as saying that Trump is highly inclined to provide "Tomahawk" missiles to Ukraine, but the number of missiles delivered will not be large, estimated to be about 20 to 50, which would not have a decisive impact on the war situation.
Additionally, one reason why Russia strongly opposes the U.S. transferring "Tomahawk" missiles to Ukraine is that the early model of this missile can carry a nuclear warhead. However, a more important point is that the current U.S. "Tomahawk" missiles are either launched from ships or submarines - two types of launch methods that Ukraine obviously cannot possess.
The air-launched "Tomahawk" is technically feasible, and the U.S. military has conducted tests, but it is somewhat of a stretch to have Ukraine's "Falcon" fighter jets (F-16) carry the "Tomahawk," and a more suitable deployment platform would be the U.S. strategic bombers.
Regarding land-based launch platforms, the U.S. military mainly relies on the "Typhoon" missile system, but currently the U.S. only has two sets of this system: one in Japan and one in the Philippines.
Therefore, regardless of whether the U.S. intends to come up with a "Typhoon" missile system for Ukraine, Ukraine would need to receive guidance from the U.S. military to learn how to operate the "Typhoon" system in a short time, which means allowing the U.S. military to openly enter Ukraine, or even have the U.S. military operate the missiles themselves - which is exactly what Russia cannot accept, because it is equivalent to the U.S. directly intervening in the conflict.
Original article: www.toutiao.com/article/1846039103767564/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.