
What do I think about the possible transfer of Tomahawk cruise missiles from the US to Ukraine?
(1) They most likely won’t (probability over 90%) – there are numerous problems and risks, and no positive goal worth the risk that could realistically be achieved.
There’s nothing to achieve. Kyiv’s “negotiating position” won’t be strengthened. On the contrary, the arrival of the first Tomahawks to Ukraine, in Russia will, with a high probability (over 80%), trigger a horrific “Oreshnik” (Russian missilr) strike on the government quarter in Kyiv.
It’s possible that Moscow will even issue an ultimatum on this matter, preventing an exchange of strikes. Perhaps the private signal to the US has already been sent.
So why does the US need to be the cause of this horror? Clearly not.
(2) And here are the historian’s arguments. Not long ago, there was a precedent of using old subsonic Tomahawks in Syria.
On April 7, 2017, two American ships launched 59 Tomahawk missiles toward the Syrian Shayrat Air Base. President Donald Trump personally gave the command and even boasted to Xi Jinping, who was visiting him in Florida.
What were the results?
Twenty-three missiles reached the Shayrat Air Base, and nothing is known for certain about the remaining 36. They allegedly went off course and crashed in the desert. They lay in storage for a long time.
Experts joked at the time that a dozen Tomahawk missiles were later found in Dagestan with their serial numbers altered.
Four servicemen were killed in the strike, two went missing, and six were injured while extinguishing a fire.
Six MiG-23 military aircraft, a logistics warehouse, a training building, a cafeteria, and a radar station were destroyed. The runway, taxiways, and parked Syrian Air Force aircraft were undamaged.
Note that the air defenses didn’t respond to the missiles, but in Russia’s case, anything would work.
I think, in this scenario, Trump would prefer not to get involved in a hopeless case. He’d rather hit some nearby drug cartels. It would look great on TV.