Tag: ukraine

Will Russian-US Tensions Likely Spiral Out Of Control If Ukraine Obtains Tomahawk Missiles?

The precedent set by Russia’s restrained response to Ukraine obtaining the F-16s, which could also be nuclear-equipped, suggests that tensions with the US will remain manageable if Ukraine obtains the Tomahawks too due to the modus vivendi that’s arguably been in place for managing them.

The latest talk about the US transferring longer-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, which Putin said earlier this month could only be used with US military personnel’s direct involvement, has prompted concerns about a potentially uncontrollable escalation spiral. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov assessed that such a development would lead to “a significant change in the situation” but nonetheless reaffirmed that it wouldn’t prevent Russia from achieving its goals in the special operation.

Ukraine’s explicitly stated goal in obtaining these arms is to “pressure” Russia into freezing the Line of Contact without any concessions from Kiev, which would essentially amount to Moscow conceding on its aforesaid goals since none would be achieved in full should that happen, ergo why it hasn’t agreed. In pursuit of that end, Ukraine threatened to cause a blackout in the Russian capital, which would likely be accompanied by more attacks against civilian and military logistics targets far behind the frontlines.

Some are therefore worried that that Russian-US tensions could spiral out of control, especially after Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that the Tomahawks can be nuclear-equipped, but the precedent set by the F-16s suggests that they’ll remain manageable. Putin himself warned in early 2024 that they too could be nuclear-equipped, yet Russia ultimately didn’t treat their use as a potential nuclear first-strike. This is arguably due to the modus vivendi that was described here in late 2024:

“[Comparatively pragmatic US ‘deep state’ figures] who still call the shots always signal their escalatory intentions far in advance so that Russia could prepare itself and thus be less likely to ‘overreact’ in some way that risks World War III. Likewise, Russia continues restraining itself from replicating the US’ ‘shock-and-awe’ campaign in order to reduce the likelihood of the West ‘overreacting’ by directly intervening in the conflict to salvage their geopolitical project and thus risking World War III.

It can only be speculated whether this interplay is due to each’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (‘deep state’) behaving responsibly on their own considering the enormity of what’s at stake or if it’s the result of a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’. Whatever the truth may be, the aforesaid model accounts for the unexpected moves or lack thereof from each, which are the US correspondingly telegraphing its escalatory intentions and Russia never seriously escalating in kind.”

The latest talk about the US transferring longer-range Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine fits the pattern of leaks serving to tip Russia off about this preplanned escalation so it can prepare its responses in advance. Time and again, Putin has exercised an almost saintly degree of self-restraint in refusing to escalate, whether symmetrically or asymmetrically. Readers can learn more about these precedents from the eight analyses enumerated in the one from late 2024 that was hyperlinked to above.

The only exception was him authorizing the use of the Oreshniks in November after the US and UK let Ukraine use their long-range missiles inside of Russia, obviously through the direct involvement of their military personnel, which he might repeat if Ukraine obtains the Tomahawks. He didn’t authorize them after Ukraine’s strategic drone strikes against parts of Russia’s nuclear triad in June that were much more provocative, however, which might have been due to his diplomatic calculations vis-à-vis Trump.

Keep reading

When Challenged On Ukraine, Hillary Clinton Lashes Out

A few days ago, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton replied to my question about Ukraine at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). She and John Sullivan, who served as Ambassador to Russia under both Presidents Trump and Biden, revealed themselves to be either liars or so ignorant of reasons for the U.S. Ukraine war as to be utter fools. [The full video can be found here].

This was a fly-on-the-wall event where you get to hear the delusions of the people who shape US foreign policy. The CFR meeting was hosted by the Dean of the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs, Keren Yarhi-Milo, who talked about the biases commonly found among policymakers and the intelligence community when they try to understand the intentions of US adversaries. She spoke about mirror imaging, which is what happens when you think that the adversary thinks in exactly the same way that you do; she spoke about the inability to empathize, she spoke about other biases that lead us to misunderstand and misperceive the intentions of our adversaries. She said it happens in the United States, repeatedly. All important.

But then Keren Yarhi-Milo veered into arm-chair psychology, telling the audience that in her view, ”[if] you want to understand the Ukraine, the decision to invade Ukraine, what’s driving this, you have to really understand Putin’s psychology, and the reference point, and how it’s all about, in his mind, regaining the Soviet empire.” So she knows what is in Putin’s mind, though he has never said that!

At the event, Ambassador John Sullivan, who also served as Deputy Secretary of State under Trump, echoed Yarhi-Milo, asserting that “you have to really understand Putin’s psychology” when evaluating his policy in Ukraine. He said, “I once had a conversation with my then-boss Secretary Blinken. And we were talking about what Putin is like. And, you know, he’s often compared to a gangster. And I didn’t want to make an ethnic reference, or if I made one it would be one that would be from my own tribe. So I’m from South Boston. And I started talking about Whitey Bulger.”

Bulger was a mafioso, murderer and a crook. Is that how Sullivan really feels about the Boston Irish?

“And I mean, you’ve got to understand, you can’t understand Putin unless you really understand where he’s from, what he’s about. He’s a tough kid from Leningrad, right? And not understanding who—his sense of grievance, his sense of loss.” He adds: “He is committed to the proposition that the great geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century was the demise of the Soviet Union. …He doesn’t lament the demise of Soviet communism. He famously says, if you’re not nostalgic for how we lived in Soviet days you don’t have a heart, but if you want to return to Soviet communism you don’t have a brain. I mean, it’s hard to be the richest person in the world with a billion-dollar palace in Sochi.”

So, Putin is like the Bulgar of the American politics, not Russia?

In fact, there is no evidence that Putin is richest person in the world (that seems to be Elon Musk) and there is also no evidence of this palace. But who cares about evidence! And even his “you don’t have a brain” quote contradicts what Putin said! But who cares!

For once, Clinton got closer to the truth when she said, “… it’s been our experience, and certainly the research shows, that you introduce, through this over-personalization, volatility. And really, the volatility becomes a greater driver than your credibility, your ability to really read this person, to manage this person, to try to shape the events.” But she didn’t challenge Yarhi-Milo or Sullivan on Putin. And she certainly didn’t like me raising the point when I asked her question:

My name is Lucy Komisar. I’m a journalist.

I was very impressed with the Dean’s analysis of how one should look with empathy and look at the other side. And then I saw in the discussion of Russia absolutely the opposite. I didn’t hear anybody talk about Kissinger and Kennan talking about not moving NATO one inch to the east, the 2014 American-sponsored coup that threw out an elected Ukraine head of government because he was too pro-Russian, the new government bombing the Russian speakers for eight years.”

David Westin of Bloomberg News, serving as moderator, then broke in:

There’s a question here, right? I’m sorry, ma’am, is there a question in here? Is there a question? This is a speech. I’m sorry.

[Here I would note that my comment was way shorter than others were allowed to make without interruption. But then again, those didn’t challenge the speaker.]

After the unasked for interruption, I continued:

Let me finish. That the Soviet Union, anybody that wanted it—that talked about it being collapsed, that it was a tragedy, but anybody that wanted to have it come back had no brain. Why did you not talk about any of these facts? And instead of that do a lot of armchair psychologizing about Putin and his motives?.

Enter Hillary.

Keep reading

Ukrainian Drones Spark Massive Blaze At Crimea’s Largest Oil Terminal

Just a day after a major report in the Financial Times said that US intelligence has been helping Ukraine conduct long-range drone strikes on Russian oil facilities since at least July, major oil depot in Crimea caught fire overnight following a Ukrainian drone strike.

This marks the second time in a week that the the Feodosia facility has been struck and gone up in flames. Importantly, it is Crimea’s largest oil storage and transshipment hub, with a capacity of around 250,000 tons.

Russian sources say that air defenses intercepted more than 20 drones targeting a fuel storage facility in the port city. The attack resulted in no casualties, amid a large emergency response to battle the blaze.

NASA’s fire monitoring system detected multiple active fires at the site, according to international reports.

In total Ukrainian forces sent some 40 drones to various areas of Crimea, and dozens more were sent against other targets in Russian territory.

Kiev and its Western backers have a clearly articulated objective to disrupt a key source of revenue funding Moscow’s war effort – which has resulted in some success, given the reports of fuel and gasoline shortages, and rising prices across Russia.

Ukraine’s military leadership has of late boasted that the operation over several months has cut Russia’s oil refining capacity by 21%.

Keep reading

Washington is Sleepwalking Toward Nuclear Armageddon

In 1914, Europe stumbled into a war no one wanted and few understood;a war that destroyed empires and redefined civilization.

Today, Washington risks repeating that mistake, this time with nuclear weapons on the table. Through arrogance, ignorance, or incompetence, the United States is drifting toward direct confrontation with Russia, the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, with consequences that could be apocalyptic.

President Trump last week said he has “sort of” made a decision about supplying Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine or NATO allies.

He wants to learn more about “what they are doing with them” before making a final decision. His goal is to avoid escalating the conflict, but his words suggest he is doing anything but.

Is Trump posturing, playing 5-D chess as some claim, or joining the warmongering wing of the GOP?

Recent developments in Ukraine point to an alarming erosion of Western deterrence.

Russian Iskander tactical ballistic missiles, the short-range workhorses of the Kremlin’s arsenal, are reportedly reaching their targets with increasing accuracy, potentially in the 90% range based on Patriot missile interception rates.

According to open-source analyses, the Iskander’s circular error probability (CEP) may now be as tight as 10–20 meters when guided by optical seekers, compared to 200 meters with inertial-only systems. This level of precision makes even subsonic versions deadly against fixed military targets.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s air defense network is struggling. The Financial Times recently reported that Russian missile upgrades have sharply reduced Patriot missile interception rates from roughly 37 percent in August 2025 to just 6 percent in September 2025.

Analysts at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) noted that intercepting six Iskanders can require 12–18 PAC-3 missiles, costing between $48 million and $72 million per engagement. Ukrainian stocks are depleted faster than they can be replenished.

Every Patriot missile fired in Ukraine represents one less available for America’s own defense. Every escalation that weakens U.S. readiness increases the risk that our sons and daughters could one day fight a nuclear war we didn’t choose.

Some observers have suggested that localized electromagnetic interference, possibly even low-yield EMP effects, occurred before certain missile strikes, temporarily impairing Ukrainian radar and communications.

While unconfirmed, this would fit with Russia’s doctrine of combined-arms electronic warfare. EMP warheads are a recognized capability of the Iskander weapons system.

This is the “good” news because Moscow still sees ways to achieve its military goals without using nuclear weapons.

Keep reading

Tomahawk Missiles Are A Problem For Both Trump And Putin

President Donald Trump warned Russia that he may send Ukraine long-range Tomahawk missiles if Moscow doesn’t settle its war there soon — suggesting that he could be ready to increase the pressure on Vladimir Putin’s government using a key weapons system.

“I might say, ’Look: if this war is not going to get settled, I’m going to send them Tomahawks,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One as he flew to Israel. “The Tomahawk is an incredible weapon, very offensive weapon. And honestly, Russia does not need that.”

Trump also said, “I might tell them that if the war is not settled — that we may very well.” He added, “We may not, but we may do it. I think it’s appropriate to bring up.”(1)

And former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday that supplying U.S. Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine could end badly for everyone, especially U.S. President Donald Trump.

Medvedev said it is impossible to distinguish between Tomahawk missiles carrying nuclear warheads and conventional ones after they are launched – a point that President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman has also made. “How should Russia respond? Exactly!” Medvedev said on Telegram, appearing to hint that Moscow’s response would be nuclear.(2)

However, Medvedev is known for his harsh statements that are not always in line with the Kremlin’s decisions. That is why the reaction to the mentioned topic from a serious Russian politician and geopolitical analyst, often present in the state media and close to the Kremlin – Senator Aleksey Pushkov is important as he reflected on the importance of this topic for Russia, Ukraine, Europe and the USA.

“Today, the decision to supply Kiev with Tomahawk missiles looks like a path towards an unlimited missile war against Russia, which will be even more difficult to avoid,” Pushkov said.

“The issue is being discussed in the US, Europe and, of course, Russia. However, in the West, the public debate is mainly focused on the political decision itself – whether to deliver or not – and not on the issues that should actually be discussed, nor on the consequences of such deliveries (if they occur). And that’s a shame, since there are very serious, I would say critical, questions about the Tomahawk.” — writes Pushkov on his Telegram channel.

Keep reading

US Intelligence Has Been Enabling Ukraine’s Destruction Of Russian Energy Sites

Fresh reporting in the Financial Times offers more confirmation that the Trump administration has been escalating the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, in hopes of forcing Moscow to the negotiating table.

The Sunday report makes clear that “The US has for months been helping Ukraine mount long-range strikes on Russian energy facilities, in what officials say is a coordinated effort to weaken Vladimir Putin’s economy and force him to the negotiating table.”

“American intelligence shared with Kyiv has enabled strikes on important Russian energy assets including oil refineries far beyond the frontline, according to multiple Ukrainian and US officials familiar with the campaign,” it adds.

One source described Ukraine’s drone program as the tool the US is using to weaken Russia’s economy and pressure Putin into ending the war on terms more favorable to Kiev.

Washington has sunk billions of dollars in expanding Ukraine’s drone capabilities, with the CIA reportedly supporting the initiative. Attacks on Russian oil and energy sites have become almost a nightly occurrence. In many cases Russian anti-air defense fail to intercept the small drones – or else only destroy some among larger swarms.

FT provides a timeline of when this ramped-up intel sharing began. The program reportedly expanded based on a July phone call between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump allegedly asked whether Ukraine could target Moscow if supplied with longer-range weapons.

The report relates this exchange as follows:

Trump signaled his backing for a strategy to “make them [Russians] feel the pain” and compel the Kremlin to negotiate, said the two people briefed on the call. The White House later said Trump was “merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing”.

After this, as if to demonstrate its existing capabilities to Washington, Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian energy sites sharply increased in August and September.

Interestingly, the FT notes that the Biden administration had avoided backing such strikes, but still authorized the supply of US Army ATACMS missiles, capable of reaching targets up to about 190 miles away, against Russian border areas.

Keep reading

Evaluating Trump’s Claim that Ukraine Can Win the War

“Ukraine,” U.S. President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social on September 23, “is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back.”

He came to this completely revised conclusion apparently having been briefed on battlefield and economic conditions by U.S. officials, including Special Envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellog and Mike Waltz, who served very briefly as Trump’s National Security Advisor and is now the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. Coming out of those briefings, Trump was now convinced that Russia is “in BIG Economic trouble” and that “Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win.” His advisors stressed that Russia had not made significant territorial gains despite large-scale summer offensives.

After the revision in Trump’s assessment, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Trump now “clearly understands the situation and is well-informed about all aspects of this war.” But does he?

Trump now apparently thinks that Putin is vulnerable because Russia is in economic trouble, although it isn’t exactly clear what trouble Russia is in. The Russian government and central bank are certainly having to walk something of an economic tightrope, trying to lower inflation while not pushing the economy towards some sort of recession. Interest rates remain high, with the Russian Central Bank’s key rate at 17%, impacting consumer spending and investment. Inflation has, however, dropped to much more manageable levels than earlier in the war, and indeed than earlier this year.  Where inflation is now around 8%, it has been as high as just under 18% back in early 2022, still topping 10% earlier this year.

While Russian government plans to increase VAT to help fund the war may contribute to modest increases in inflation, the Russian Central Bank still expects inflation to be down to 6-7% by the end of the year. Lower inflation should allow for the cutting of interest rates. If all of this data was from a Western country it would be seen as positive, but there seems to be a determination on the part of some Western governments and observers to try to put a negative spin on any economic news out of Russia – regardless of what the news is.

Russia has weathered the harshest sanctions regime the West could muster. Russia has the fourth largest economy in the world when measured by purchasing-power parity, which is an assessment of the size of an economy adjusted for the cost of goods and services within it, and is a key measure used by the World Bank. Russia’s GDP growth continues to be more than respectable – currently still expected to be above 1% for 2025 even according to conservative figures. For the first time since the war began, the 2026 budget actually cuts military spending. Russia will officially spend 5.8% of GDP on defense spending. In comparison, Ukraine spends 34.48% of GDP on the military, the largest military burden in the world.

Russia may be facing some economic challenges, but Ukraine is undoubtedly in big trouble and is living hand to mouth. Ukraine has been, for some time, on the verge of economic collapse – and the IMF recently revealed that the situation is far worse than projected. Ukraine has received $145 billion in international aid since the war began, and they have a massive budget deficit they cannot pay. At this point the Ukrainian economy is essentially dependent on foreign assistance. While for the time being the EU currently seems content to carry on bailing Ukraine out, for how long that will last and whether it will be sufficient to keep Ukraine afloat remains to be seen.

The same negative trend for Ukraine is apparent not just for the money to fund the war, but for the troops to fight it. Even if Ukraine had all the money and weapons it needs to equip the war, it is running out of soldiers to fight it. By far the most serious shortage Ukraine is facing is manpower. Millions have left the country, hundreds of thousands have avoided the draft, and, worst of all, hundreds of thousands have been killed or seriously injured. Already by the end of 2023, a close aid to Zelensky had complained that, even if Ukraine had all the weapons they needed, they “don’t have the men to use them.” Two years later, the situation is very much worse.

Keep reading

Another Nuclear Warning From Medvedev, This Time Over Tomahawks

Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has issued a nuclear warning in the face of reports that Washington may authorize transferring US long-range Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.

President Trump’s latest remarks weighing in on the issue saw him veil his intentions in usually cryptic wording. Aboard Air Force One while traveling to the Middle East earlier Monday he had said Tomahawks are a “very offensive weapon,” noting, “honestly, Russia does not need that.”

Headlines throughout the say said he ‘might’ approve of sending them. These are missiles capable of hitting Moscow. This is also as last month Trump surprised observers by claiming that Ukraine could still ‘win’ the war and actually regain territory.

Medvedev’s chilling response on Monday spelled out that this “could end badly for everyone … most of all, for Trump himself,” according to a translation of his Telegram post.

“It’s been said a hundred times, in a manner understandable even to the star-spangled man, that it’s impossible to distinguish a nuclear Tomahawk missile from a conventional one in flight,” Medvedev, who serves as the Russian Security Council Deputy Chair, further noted.

Medvedev here is alluding to Russian strategic doctrine. In a scenario where Moscow leaders believed or suspected a nuclear payload had been launched at Russia, its military would have the right to respond in kind, with nukes.

The past couple months have seen Trump and Medvedev direct threatening messages at each other, particularly related to Trump proclaiming that he had deployed a pair of nuclear submarines somewhere near Russia.

Thankfully it has all so far been confined to social media barbs, and not any clear instance of either side’s strategic forces being placed on emergency alert.

But Medvedev’s latest message is meant as a clear ‘red line’ warning to Washington – that things could rapidly and uncontrollably escalate in Ukraine if the US sends Tomahawk missiles to use against Russia.

Keep reading

Legalized Mass Murder & the Balkans

Trump is on the WRONG side of this war with Russia, and this is the most significant risk of taking us into World War III. You cannot deal with the Balkans as if it were any other place in the world. The region has experienced centuries of imperial domination, forced religious conversion, and forced assimilation. Because these groups lived side-by-side for so long, their grievances are almost exclusively against each other. A Serb’s historical trauma is often linked to a Croat or an Ottoman (Bosniak), and vice versa. There is a cyclical pattern of eternal vengeance in the Balkans. The violence of the 1940s was avenged in the 1990s, creating a seemingly endless cycle where each generation feels it must settle the score for the last.

Then there has been the political manipulation—the most critical factor in the modern era. The hatred was not a spontaneous outburst; it was carefully, deliberately, and ruthlessly manufactured by elites for political gain over time. Bandera of Ukraine launched his ethnic cleansing to terminate anyone without Ukrainian blood to forge their own country, which today are the Neonazis who still market and display Bandera’s image following his call for ruthless ethnic cleansing. His image dominated the Maidan Revolution of 2014.

In conclusion, the ethnic hatred in the Balkans is a tragic story of how deep historical fault lines, when combined with the modern political tool of nationalism and weaponized by unscrupulous leaders, can be exploded into catastrophic violence. It is a stark warning about the power of history and the danger of politicians who use ethnic identity as a weapon. The West is now supporting the followers of Adolf Hitler. The ethnic hatred of the Ukrainians toward Russians started the separation movement of the Donbas when they were killing Russian-speaking people in Odessa, and the West turned a blind eye because the victims were Russians.

Keep reading

Russia Continues Bombardment of Ukraine Energy Infrastructure

Russia attacked Ukraine’s power grid overnight into Sunday, part of an ongoing campaign to cripple Ukrainian energy infrastructure before winter. This came as Moscow expressed “extreme concern” over the United States potentially providing Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukriane.

Kyiv regional Gov. Mykola Kalashnyk said two employees of Ukraine´s largest private energy company, DTEK, were wounded in Russian strikes on a substation in the region. Ukraine´s Energy Ministry said that energy infrastructure was also attacked in the regions of Donetsk, Odesa, and Chernihiv.

“Russia continues its aerial terror against our cities and communities, intensifying strikes on our energy infrastructure,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote on X, noting that Russia had launched “more than 3,100 drones, 92 missiles, and around 1,360 glide bombs” against Ukraine over the past week.

Zelenskyy also called for tighter secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian oil.

“Sanctions, tariffs, and joint actions against the buyers of Russian oil – those who finance this war – must all remain on the table,” he wrote on X.

The Ukrainian president said Saturday he had a “very positive and productive” phone call with U.S. President Donald Trump, in which he told Trump about Russian attacks on Ukraine’s energy system and opportunities to strengthen Ukraine’s air defense. A day earlier, Zelenskyy said he was in discussions with U.S. officials about the possible provision of various long-range precision strike weapons, including Tomahawks and more ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles.

Keep reading