"At its core, then, the “Tomahawk for Ukraine” story is not about military reality. It is about theater. It appeals to audiences with a shallow grasp of defense technology and reassures them with the idea that another “silver bullet” system is on the way."
Posturing by whom and for whom? There is so much war-fog lately. What is going on with secret negotiations and deals?
Will I live to find out, or even live and never find out?
We hear that one at every escalation as well. Thing is it already works. It keep the Ukrainian army in the field and the feeble Russia response encourages further escalations.
From the Western perspective, it's a Martingale Strategy - keep doubling down until you win, since Russia never will respond.
Russia played an interesting game, invading deeply, without "enough troops" to invade deeply, which gave the element of surprise. Massive gains were made in 2 months and the Ukrainians made a peace deal, but Boris Johnson came with orders to get back to war.
In the face of that, Russia had to withdraw and build up forces, because it did not have enough forces to hold the territories.
Disagreeing with your analysis is not necessarily "making excuses".
The author writes a devastating piece methodically destroying the simplistic notion of sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, and all you've got is the same tired, old take.
So I guess we're supposed to just memory-hole the impotent American response to Ansar Allah sinking multiple Western ships in the Red Sea, plus blowing up several Israeli targets, including a hotel with 60 casualties? Where was the "unmistakable and brutal" response? I must have missed it.
OK, so you really think that if Canada were to start firing off missiles at the United States that there would be no response? Otherwise, you provide a fine comparison of apples and oranges, unless Ansar Allah are shooting missiles at NYC of late.
"The author writes a devastating piece methodically destroying the simplistic notion of sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, and all you've got is the same tired, old take."
And yet the author of the "Devastating piece" (your words) liked my comment.
The US IS Israel. AIPAC controls Congress, the President, and the courts. So an attack on Israel is effectively an attack on the US. Plus, the shutdown of shipping through the Red Sea directly harms the global economy, and indirectly, the US economy through higher insurance/shipping rates.
And yet we have nothing as a response, save wasting billions running through ammunition stocks with zero results.
I guess you've got nothing to say about the heart of the author's thesis, which is that Tomahawks to Ukraine are theater, and aren't happening? What is the matter, that doesn't fit into your dogma?
Um, no, the United States is not Israel, unless you want to try to fire a missile or two at NYC and see what happens. Nobody seems to try this for some reason. I wonder why, since you assured us that "the US is Israel".
Anyway, we go through the same kabuki at every escalation. Trump said he is "leaning".to giving Tomahawks to Ukraine, which means that they already were delivered. Otherwise, it's just excuses made to rationalize Russian dithering and indecision.
Again, you fail to comprehend that there aren't any going to be Tomahawks going to Ukraine - that was the main point of the author's diligent and thorough analysis. There are technical reasons, which you don't bother to address.
If you'd like to provide a counter-argument, I'm sure we'd all rather hear that than the same old pessimistic, "Putin is a wimp" narrative that you've been saying since time immemorial.
One possibility is that US personnel and systems will be used to launch a few rounds from Poland, or the Baltic Sea, and then a cover story created that it was "the Ukrainians" that did it. Sort of like the Nordstream sabotage - we all know it wasn't a bunch of crazy Ukrainians on a sailboat, but that didn't stop them from pushing the cover story.
That sounds possible to me, although modern technology would surely reveal the truth to the Russians, and that would be a direct NATO attack on Russia.
Bottom line, assuming the analysis here by Mike is correct, there aren't gonna be any Tomahawks delivered to Ukraine on a pallet with a note saying "good luck - have at it!"
We hear that one at every escalation as well, it's impossible, NATO doesn't have the resources, it's unpopular, etc..
And no shit US and NATO personnel are already involved. Who do you think is manning those Patriot batteries, who is firing those ATACMS (at Russia, no less!)?
Anyway the tomahawks have already accomplished their intended missions. The Ukrainian military is still in the field, Russian impotence on full display and further escalation to follow.
If you don't like it when I point out Russian impotence, maybe they should not act so impotently.
What the hell are you doing? Taking GM's place? If Russia would have done what you advocate, the Banderites, and Azov Ukronazi's would have scattered to the four winds and been distributed throughout the world. Russia's approach has them convinced that there is a chance for them, so they stay and meet their demise. Russia is winning on every front and killing hundreds of thousands of fanatics at a 20 to one attrition rate.
Who is winning? Is Ukraine advancing? Just start simple and ask yourself those questions. If you still can't see it, then you need the kind of help that is above my pay grade. Cheers.
Nobody said Ukraine has to be advancing. Right now, NATO is using warm live Ukrainian bodies to soak up Russian munitions before NATO intervenes directly and openly. Russian dithering and indecision have made this possible.
Of course, by your logic, the Central Powers were winning in 1918 as they continued to occupy France and were advancing most of the summer.
**We’re eagerly waiting for your story—it’s the most interesting one yet.** The very thought of using an atomhawk, and how the Russian army might deploy more aerial reconnaissance platforms, suggests that any potential attack would meet an even stronger response, even from Oreshnik. All this unfolds in the theater of the absurd, which is now the new normal for the disillusioned circle of Slavs.
All those requirements, controls, steps, and decisions to be made not to consider the complicated and highly technical and expenses to set up a war system? What if one tiny link in the chain goes wrong? Modern warfare has become more power talk and intimidation but in reality like you said, theatre. The future is for weapons assembled in endless series in a two star Michelin kitchen more effective more dangerous and above all much cheaper.
Thank you for this deep insight into the Tomahawk technology.
Reading these details however makes me rise a question: has nobody explained this to the Ukrainian and Western military partners as well as Zelensky?
I can’t believe nobody did and it brings to the bitter conclusion that behind the real war a great deal of political farse is going on. But to whose benefit? Ukraine is doomed and Zelensky knows it. The man is either a monster or an idiot but he is clearly being used.
Zelensky is just a pawn in a great game that has been played for the last 200 years. People change, but the basics never change. The war is a business, and the business is a war. Big game where the ordinary people pay the price for the greedy elite.
The entire analysis requires us to believe that not only does the author know NATO capabilities better than NATO itself does, but also that nobody in the Pentagon is capable of telling the politicians that the launchers don't exist to do what they want to do, and if the politicians do not listen, that the generals have forgotten how to leak.
I understand your skepticism but, as George Galloway once explained in one of his monologues on the MOAT, consider that most people look at generals and army officers like they are all related to James Bond aka 007 whereas the reality is that they are more Johnny English likes.
To get a sense of this it is enough to listen to gen. Mark Milley’s declarations of the past few years.
I wouldn’t be surprised that indeed the Pentagon is unable to tell the bitter truth to the nation because they know no better.
That's likely why Mr. Cocaine Pianist has British bodyguards, if he gets out of line, they'll just inject him with something or spike his nose candy and elevate the next puppet in line.
I’ve heard about it, of course—but the real question is, who will operate it? It’s simple: it will be either the Americans or the British. The launcher itself, as a technical item, isn’t the problem. With a skilled team of no more than ten people, the design could be completed within six months. The rest is just fabrication and the prototype assembly. Overall, if administrative and bureaucratic obstacles are set aside, professionals could complete the entire project—from the drafting board to a demonstration vehicle—in no more than two years. Funding isn’t an issue either; taxpayers will “gladly” cover the cost.
Even the notoriously slow U.S. contract administration will probably have the paperwork ready within a reasonable time. This new system will need testing, including live-fire trials, which could take some time. If the administration could bypass strict U.S. military-supplier requirements and treat it as an export option, that would save time. So if the prototype ever reaches Ukraine, it will most likely be manned by the U.S. team. Auxiliary staff could be Ukrainian, but the personnel handling combat procedures will be American. These “contractors” might be technically retired U.S. personnel, but they will still need a live feed from intelligence and the Pentagon. The bottom line is that the launcher itself isn’t a big deal if sufficient funds are available to develop it—but everything else remains under military control, and using it against Russia would not be wise. Common sense, however, is not always the strongest attribute of U.S. decision-makers.
Thanks so much for this absolutely fascinating report. Your analysis is eye opening and first class. I am very grateful to you for your knowledge that you share with us. It is now easy to see why you wrote that the whole idea of Tomahawks as a wunderwaffe is laughable precisely because of those huge complexities of the system of the systems.
Plenty of targets, and you can be sure they will choose the most painful ones.
Notice how the drones with relatively small payloads attacked precisely the targets they could cause the most damage to and the most disruption to Russia -- oil refineries (which don't need all that much explosive to blow up).
They will hit the gas transit network most likely, and the key MIC facilities.
Russia's TPPs rely heavily on gas, so that will cause blackouts and the heat going out in much of European Russia. In the middle of winter. The Russian winter.
"At its core, then, the “Tomahawk for Ukraine” story is not about military reality. It is about theater. It appeals to audiences with a shallow grasp of defense technology and reassures them with the idea that another “silver bullet” system is on the way."
Posturing by whom and for whom? There is so much war-fog lately. What is going on with secret negotiations and deals?
Will I live to find out, or even live and never find out?
We hear that one at every escalation as well. Thing is it already works. It keep the Ukrainian army in the field and the feeble Russia response encourages further escalations.
From the Western perspective, it's a Martingale Strategy - keep doubling down until you win, since Russia never will respond.
You can double down until you lose, too, if your opponent has more chips.
Re-read my last clause. Russian dithering and indecision have made this possible.
Russia is "responding" by moving forward steadily and holding a large force in reservefor a concerted attack by NATO.
That is a sound strategy. The reserves are critical to deterring NATO.
This is neither dithering nor indecision, but it is buying time. Time is on Russia's side.
Had Russia used adequate force from the outset, the point would have been academic.
And make whatever excuses you wish.
Russia played an interesting game, invading deeply, without "enough troops" to invade deeply, which gave the element of surprise. Massive gains were made in 2 months and the Ukrainians made a peace deal, but Boris Johnson came with orders to get back to war.
In the face of that, Russia had to withdraw and build up forces, because it did not have enough forces to hold the territories.
Disagreeing with your analysis is not necessarily "making excuses".
;-)
Pretend China, Russia or anyone were supplying missiles for the express purpose of striking the United States.
Would we be hearing the same excuses? No, because the American response would be unmistakable and brutal.
Which is why nobody would try such a thing.
The author writes a devastating piece methodically destroying the simplistic notion of sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, and all you've got is the same tired, old take.
So I guess we're supposed to just memory-hole the impotent American response to Ansar Allah sinking multiple Western ships in the Red Sea, plus blowing up several Israeli targets, including a hotel with 60 casualties? Where was the "unmistakable and brutal" response? I must have missed it.
OK, so you really think that if Canada were to start firing off missiles at the United States that there would be no response? Otherwise, you provide a fine comparison of apples and oranges, unless Ansar Allah are shooting missiles at NYC of late.
"The author writes a devastating piece methodically destroying the simplistic notion of sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, and all you've got is the same tired, old take."
And yet the author of the "Devastating piece" (your words) liked my comment.
The US IS Israel. AIPAC controls Congress, the President, and the courts. So an attack on Israel is effectively an attack on the US. Plus, the shutdown of shipping through the Red Sea directly harms the global economy, and indirectly, the US economy through higher insurance/shipping rates.
And yet we have nothing as a response, save wasting billions running through ammunition stocks with zero results.
I guess you've got nothing to say about the heart of the author's thesis, which is that Tomahawks to Ukraine are theater, and aren't happening? What is the matter, that doesn't fit into your dogma?
Um, no, the United States is not Israel, unless you want to try to fire a missile or two at NYC and see what happens. Nobody seems to try this for some reason. I wonder why, since you assured us that "the US is Israel".
Anyway, we go through the same kabuki at every escalation. Trump said he is "leaning".to giving Tomahawks to Ukraine, which means that they already were delivered. Otherwise, it's just excuses made to rationalize Russian dithering and indecision.
Again, you fail to comprehend that there aren't any going to be Tomahawks going to Ukraine - that was the main point of the author's diligent and thorough analysis. There are technical reasons, which you don't bother to address.
If you'd like to provide a counter-argument, I'm sure we'd all rather hear that than the same old pessimistic, "Putin is a wimp" narrative that you've been saying since time immemorial.
One possibility is that US personnel and systems will be used to launch a few rounds from Poland, or the Baltic Sea, and then a cover story created that it was "the Ukrainians" that did it. Sort of like the Nordstream sabotage - we all know it wasn't a bunch of crazy Ukrainians on a sailboat, but that didn't stop them from pushing the cover story.
That sounds possible to me, although modern technology would surely reveal the truth to the Russians, and that would be a direct NATO attack on Russia.
Bottom line, assuming the analysis here by Mike is correct, there aren't gonna be any Tomahawks delivered to Ukraine on a pallet with a note saying "good luck - have at it!"
We hear that one at every escalation as well, it's impossible, NATO doesn't have the resources, it's unpopular, etc..
And no shit US and NATO personnel are already involved. Who do you think is manning those Patriot batteries, who is firing those ATACMS (at Russia, no less!)?
Anyway the tomahawks have already accomplished their intended missions. The Ukrainian military is still in the field, Russian impotence on full display and further escalation to follow.
If you don't like it when I point out Russian impotence, maybe they should not act so impotently.
But the Russian response so far, and even with respect to this threat, has been... well, non-existent.
So why not?
Never underestimate your enemy even if he flies like a butterfly but stings like a bee not one bee but a whole swarm and continuously.
What the hell are you doing? Taking GM's place? If Russia would have done what you advocate, the Banderites, and Azov Ukronazi's would have scattered to the four winds and been distributed throughout the world. Russia's approach has them convinced that there is a chance for them, so they stay and meet their demise. Russia is winning on every front and killing hundreds of thousands of fanatics at a 20 to one attrition rate.
More wishful thinking, since the Azovites etc. aren't the ones at the front.
Anyway, for years now we've been hearing about these terrific casualties that Ukraine is supposedly taking, but the front never cracks.
What kind of bull shit are you spewing? The front is disintegrating as we speak. You need to pull your head out of GM's ass and find better sources.
We've been hearing that the "front is disintegrating, Ukraine is collapsing" for years now as well but it never seems to happen.
I don't need GM to tell me that.
Who is winning? Is Ukraine advancing? Just start simple and ask yourself those questions. If you still can't see it, then you need the kind of help that is above my pay grade. Cheers.
You are trying to change the subject.
Whatever.
Nobody said Ukraine has to be advancing. Right now, NATO is using warm live Ukrainian bodies to soak up Russian munitions before NATO intervenes directly and openly. Russian dithering and indecision have made this possible.
Of course, by your logic, the Central Powers were winning in 1918 as they continued to occupy France and were advancing most of the summer.
Thank you for this extensive report. This crushing of illusions was to be expected. Again.
In short, the US would be launching strategic (non-nuclear, for now) strikes deep into the Russian hinterland from Ukraine.
In which context Putin's statements at Valdai (where he walked that red line back) are simply astonishing...
Let's just say:
a) I'm convinced
b) I've found a second to Big Serge to read
---
**We’re eagerly waiting for your story—it’s the most interesting one yet.** The very thought of using an atomhawk, and how the Russian army might deploy more aerial reconnaissance platforms, suggests that any potential attack would meet an even stronger response, even from Oreshnik. All this unfolds in the theater of the absurd, which is now the new normal for the disillusioned circle of Slavs.
---
Nice write up, Mike! Alexander Kots said it best, when he stated that Russia would consider any Tomahawk launched to be nuclear armed.
We heard that one before as well. F-16s can carry nuclear weapons.
Russia didn't do jack.
So fun to read your analysis making it so clear what fools the Warrior Leaders of the West chants are.
All those requirements, controls, steps, and decisions to be made not to consider the complicated and highly technical and expenses to set up a war system? What if one tiny link in the chain goes wrong? Modern warfare has become more power talk and intimidation but in reality like you said, theatre. The future is for weapons assembled in endless series in a two star Michelin kitchen more effective more dangerous and above all much cheaper.
Thank you for this deep insight into the Tomahawk technology.
Reading these details however makes me rise a question: has nobody explained this to the Ukrainian and Western military partners as well as Zelensky?
I can’t believe nobody did and it brings to the bitter conclusion that behind the real war a great deal of political farse is going on. But to whose benefit? Ukraine is doomed and Zelensky knows it. The man is either a monster or an idiot but he is clearly being used.
Who else is behind this tragedy?
Thank you.
Zelensky is just a pawn in a great game that has been played for the last 200 years. People change, but the basics never change. The war is a business, and the business is a war. Big game where the ordinary people pay the price for the greedy elite.
The entire analysis requires us to believe that not only does the author know NATO capabilities better than NATO itself does, but also that nobody in the Pentagon is capable of telling the politicians that the launchers don't exist to do what they want to do, and if the politicians do not listen, that the generals have forgotten how to leak.
This, frankly, beggars belief.
I understand your skepticism but, as George Galloway once explained in one of his monologues on the MOAT, consider that most people look at generals and army officers like they are all related to James Bond aka 007 whereas the reality is that they are more Johnny English likes.
To get a sense of this it is enough to listen to gen. Mark Milley’s declarations of the past few years.
I wouldn’t be surprised that indeed the Pentagon is unable to tell the bitter truth to the nation because they know no better.
The generals don't need to be James Bond, or even MacArthur
They do have a long track record of getting their side of events into the public record even if the politicians won't listen.
Well, if Zelensky were to get the Aerial ceasefire he's currently demanding, he will Not be able to use the Tomahawks.
Does Zelensky's demand for a aerial ceasefire mean that he knows he's not going to get Tomahawks?
He is not the one in charge. He will do what he is told to do.
That's likely why Mr. Cocaine Pianist has British bodyguards, if he gets out of line, they'll just inject him with something or spike his nose candy and elevate the next puppet in line.
Mike, have you heard/read the news of Oshkosh Defense, a major US military vehicle manufacturer, introducing a new X-MAV mobile Tomahawk launcher? https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/us-defense-firm-unveils-x-mav-mobile-tomahawk-launcher
What do you think of it?
Apparently, the deployment of Tomahawk in Ukraine was not just an empty threat...
I’ve heard about it, of course—but the real question is, who will operate it? It’s simple: it will be either the Americans or the British. The launcher itself, as a technical item, isn’t the problem. With a skilled team of no more than ten people, the design could be completed within six months. The rest is just fabrication and the prototype assembly. Overall, if administrative and bureaucratic obstacles are set aside, professionals could complete the entire project—from the drafting board to a demonstration vehicle—in no more than two years. Funding isn’t an issue either; taxpayers will “gladly” cover the cost.
Even the notoriously slow U.S. contract administration will probably have the paperwork ready within a reasonable time. This new system will need testing, including live-fire trials, which could take some time. If the administration could bypass strict U.S. military-supplier requirements and treat it as an export option, that would save time. So if the prototype ever reaches Ukraine, it will most likely be manned by the U.S. team. Auxiliary staff could be Ukrainian, but the personnel handling combat procedures will be American. These “contractors” might be technically retired U.S. personnel, but they will still need a live feed from intelligence and the Pentagon. The bottom line is that the launcher itself isn’t a big deal if sufficient funds are available to develop it—but everything else remains under military control, and using it against Russia would not be wise. Common sense, however, is not always the strongest attribute of U.S. decision-makers.
Thanks for the very thorough response.
Thanks so much for this absolutely fascinating report. Your analysis is eye opening and first class. I am very grateful to you for your knowledge that you share with us. It is now easy to see why you wrote that the whole idea of Tomahawks as a wunderwaffe is laughable precisely because of those huge complexities of the system of the systems.
Tahnk you
What about the new X-MAV mobile launcher unveiled yesterday in the US? A PR stunt? Does it change anything of the complexity of the issue discussed?
Nice report. What targets coukd even be hit other than just using the tomahawk as a terror weapon ?
Thank you
Plenty of targets, and you can be sure they will choose the most painful ones.
Notice how the drones with relatively small payloads attacked precisely the targets they could cause the most damage to and the most disruption to Russia -- oil refineries (which don't need all that much explosive to blow up).
So just terrorism.
They will hit the gas transit network most likely, and the key MIC facilities.
Russia's TPPs rely heavily on gas, so that will cause blackouts and the heat going out in much of European Russia. In the middle of winter. The Russian winter.
Just starting on delayed “weekend” reading. Slowly, I catch up. Thank you; best to family and the BMA community!❤️🐈⬛
Thank you. Best to you & family as well.