Dear Jake Broe, Please Get It Right: Tomahawk Talk Is Asymmetric Warfare Against Ukraine
- john raymond
- 2 days ago
- 3 min read
President Trump’s talk of sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine is not a strategic bluff meant to unsettle Moscow. It is a deliberate act of asymmetric sabotage—cheap talk meant to stall aid, muddy public perception, and protect the Kremlin’s strategic depth under the guise of American assertiveness.
This is not a game between equals or a clever psychological tactic. It is regime security masquerading as statecraft.
The Misread
Jake Broe’s instinct to identify psychological warfare is right—but his target is off. Trump is not “psyching out” Russia; he is manipulating the West. By framing the Tomahawk issue as a question of timing, training, and technical complexity, Trump is running the clock—a classic asymmetric maneuver that buys Putin time to rebuild, reposition, and retaliate.
When analysts give Trump the benefit of strategic doubt—imagining he has a hidden pro-Ukraine objective—they become unwitting participants in his theater. Trump’s words are never aimed at deterrence; they are always aimed at distraction. He talks about Tomahawks precisely because they are not readily usable. Their deployment would require extensive logistics, crew certification, and political coordination—none of which he intends to authorize.
Pillar One: Regime Security
Under the Raymond Method’s first pillar, all autocrats act according to the laws of regime survival. Trump’s survival is intertwined with Putin’s. Both men are under siege from internal legitimacy crises and external accountability. The destruction of Ukrainian resistance would validate Trump’s narrative of “strongman realism” and deliver Putin the breathing space he needs to preserve his collapsing petro-state.
Thus, every delay in arming Ukraine—every “review,” every “decision soon,” every theatrical press remark—serves a single end: protecting both regimes from collapse. Trump’s goal is not to end the war. It is to prolong it without resolution, so that Russia’s defeat never materializes and America’s commitment to democracy erodes in confusion.
Pillar Two: Asymmetric Warfare
Asymmetric warfare thrives on imbalance—especially informational imbalance. In this case, Trump’s Tomahawk talk operates as a psychological inversion. Instead of boosting Ukrainian morale, it weaponizes hope and replaces concrete aid with speculative drama. It transforms the battlefield into a waiting room.
While the public debates the feasibility of transferring obsolete cruise missiles, Ukraine bleeds for want of ammunition, F-16 components, and real-time intelligence integration. The asymmetry lies in tempo. Russia fights through sustained brutality; Trump fights through delay. Every week of Western hesitation is a week of Russian recovery.
Pillar Three: The Byzantine Traitor-General
Trump’s posture fits the Byzantine Traitor-General paradigm—the figure who appears to defend the empire while quietly undermining its walls. The Tomahawk narrative allows Trump to appear muscular to his domestic base (“We might send missiles”) while ensuring that no operational change occurs. He is the traitor within the citadel, smiling as the gates stay open.
By keeping discussions focused on spectacular but impractical systems, he crowds out realistic support packages—long-range drones, ATACMS resupplies, spare parts, and electronic warfare kits that actually determine victory conditions. The more technical the distraction, the more sophisticated the sabotage appears.
The Test of Intent
Intent is revealed by what a leader chooses not to do. Trump could expedite existing shipments of GMLRS rockets, extend Patriot coverage, or authorize limited U.S. intelligence sharing for defensive strikes. He has done none of these. Instead, he floats a technically complex system with high delay value.
If a man claims to support your cause while withholding the tools that could make you win, he is not your ally. He is managing your defeat at a politically acceptable pace.
The Harm of Naïve Analysis
When well-meaning commentators like Jake Broe interpret Trump’s words as “psychological gamesmanship” against Russia, they miss the deeper asymmetry. The harm is epistemic: the public begins to normalize strategic paralysis as strategy itself. The longer the conversation remains about maybe sending Tomahawks, the less it remains about actually winning the war.
This rhetorical displacement is itself a weapon. It diffuses urgency, divides analysts, and gives Putin the one resource he cannot buy—time.
The Real Play
Trump’s endgame is not deterrence. It is erosion—of trust, clarity, and tempo. He plays the long con: to exhaust Ukraine’s allies while preserving plausible deniability. The Kremlin does not need him to veto aid outright; it only needs him to delay and confuse. Every “decision pending” becomes a shield for Moscow. Every “technical review” becomes a trench.
Dear Jake...
The Tomahawk narrative is asymmetric warfare executed through information and time. Trump’s alignment with Putin is not incidental; it is structural. His regime security depends on prolonging chaos abroad and paralysis at home. Those who analyze him as a rational actor seeking leverage against Russia fundamentally misread the board.
Trump is not bluffing for Ukraine’s benefit—he is buying Putin time for his own.
So Jake, please get it right. Tomahawk talk is not a strategy. It’s sabotage.
Comments