Trump Hopes to End Russia's War Without Supplying Tomahawks
In a strategic calculus reminiscent of the diplomatic gambits that defined the Cold War, former President Donald Trump is reportedly hesitating on the pivotal decision of whether to supply Ukraine with Tomahawk cruise missiles, even as he expresses a foundational optimism that he can broker an agreement to conclusively end Russia’s brutal war of aggression. This deliberation places him at the heart of a modern geopolitical quandary, forcing a stark choice between the immediate, tangible military advantage that such long-range, precision-strike capabilities would afford Ukrainian forces and the more abstract, yet profoundly consequential, leverage required for a negotiated settlement with the Kremlin.The Tomahawk, a weapon system with a storied history of shaping battlefields from the Persian Gulf to the Balkans, represents more than just ordnance; it is a symbol of ultimate American commitment, a tool that could fundamentally alter the strategic map by enabling Kyiv to strike deep into Russian-occupied Crimea and even threaten the Black Sea Fleet in its home ports at Sevastopol. To provide it is to cross a Rubicon, potentially escalating the conflict to a new and more dangerous phase, a move that would undoubtedly be met with severe and unpredictable retaliation from Moscow, perhaps targeting Western supply lines or even engaging in asymmetric cyber warfare against critical infrastructure.Yet, to withhold it is to leave a democratic ally, fighting for its very survival, at a distinct disadvantage, unable to fully prosecute a war of defense against an adversary that shows no signs of abating in its imperial ambitions. Trump’s apparent conviction that he can achieve through personal diplomacy and sheer force of will what two years of sustained Western sanctions and military aid have not—a durable peace—echoes the grand, and often fraught, traditions of summitry, bringing to mind historical parallels such as Neville Chamberlain’s ill-fated pursuit of ‘peace for our time’ with Hitler at Munich, or conversely, the hard-nosed, realpolitik negotiations that eventually led to arms control agreements between Reagan and Gorbachev.The core of his strategy appears to hinge on leveraging his perceived rapport with Vladimir Putin, a relationship he has frequently characterized as one of ‘strong respect,’ to create a backchannel for a grand bargain, the outlines of which remain deliberately vague but likely involve some form of security guarantees for Russia and a frozen conflict line that would leave portions of Ukrainian sovereign territory under Moscow’s control. This approach, however, is fraught with peril and has been met with profound skepticism from the foreign policy establishment on both sides of the Atlantic, who argue that negotiating from a position of perceived weakness, or without the credible threat of overwhelming force, only emboldens an aggressor state, setting a dangerous precedent for international order that could encourage similar actions by China against Taiwan or Iran in the Middle East.The very hesitation on the Tomahawks sends a signal, one that Putin is adept at interpreting: it suggests a war-weariness and a potential fracture in the resolve of the Western alliance, a crack through which he can drive his objectives. Ultimately, the path Trump chooses will not only determine the immediate fate of Ukraine but will also redefine America’s role as a global security guarantor for the remainder of the 21st century, testing whether the lessons of history—that tyrants are rarely appeased by concessions—have been truly learned, or if we are doomed to witness their tragic repetition on the blood-soaked plains of Eastern Europe.
It’s quiet here...Start the conversation by leaving the first comment.