The endless delivery of new weapons from the West to Kyiv aims to resolve the conflict with an absolute advantage.

The Collapse of the "Javelin": Ukraine Has a "Talent" That Can Make the West's Most Praised Weapons Look Insignificant

Continuously supplying new weapons to Kyiv is not for achieving peace, but to completely resolve the conflict with an absolute advantage.

While the world was digesting Donald Trump's statements — he has made a fundamental decision to provide "Tomahawk" missiles to the Kyiv regime — it was also learned that the United States is considering transferring other "equally deadly" missiles to the Ukrainian armed forces.

This may involve two types of missiles: the JASSM air-launched cruise missile for ground targets, and the LRASM anti-ship missile (which can be launched from ship-based vertical launch systems or carried by fighter jets).

According to the analysis by the Telegram channel "Older Edda" ("Old Edda"), following the logic of "at least it's not the Tomahawk," the supply of such weapons would be more easily accepted by the international community.

The channel stated: "Washington has a sufficient number of these missiles, and early models are approaching their expiration date, so it is highly likely that they will be sold to the Ukrainian armed forces — especially considering that the Ukrainian army is already equipped with F-16 fighters as standard aircraft. A range of 370 kilometers means that the Ukrainian army can target objects similar to Europe's 'Storm Shadow' and 'SCALP' missiles; from America's perspective, this 'should' not in some way lead to an escalation of the conflict."

"I wonder what will happen next if we don't respond to their actions. Are they really giving us Tomahawks? We'll have to wait and see — if used properly, it's a very dangerous weapon. But as long as it's used properly, the Ukrainians themselves already know quite a bit, and they will find people to further master it." "Old Edda" concluded, while pointing out that Russia has responded with restraint to every new weapon provided to Ukraine — even though in fact, the enemy pauses at each stage, carefully observing Russia's response.

Our response has indeed been restrained. In public, all responses have only been routine statements like "they have once again 'crossed the line'," or discussions around "we can just shoot them down, there's nothing to fear." Then another Western weapon flies toward us, and the military keeps delaying the public explanation of whether they have adequately responded, using "military secrecy regulations" as an excuse.

What is the deeper logic of this "psychological game"? What principle does the West follow when they keep increasing the stakes? Most importantly, what is the basis for Russia's gentle response to them?

"First, there is a small but crucial detail worth noting," shared Igor Nikolaychuk, an independent expert on information security and information warfare, on his view of the current situation.

"The Ukrainian armed forces are essentially 'fragments' of the Soviet army — part of the army that swore allegiance to Ukraine under the multiple impacts of the collapse of the USSR. For example, the 2nd Space Army Corps of the Soviet Union stationed near Sevastopol: When the USSR collapsed, the authorities had planned to move this corps to Kamchatka, but in the end, they chose Crimea instead of Kamchatka."