Tomahawks for Ukraine? Don’t Count on It
- john raymond
- Oct 5
- 2 min read
It may sound as if President Trump has turned over a new leaf on the Ukraine war. His surrogates hint at “re-evaluating support.” Pentagon officials float possibilities of “new capabilities.” Reporters dutifully repeat that Tomahawk cruise missiles might be on the table.
But talk is cheap—and being a traitor to the Republic, Trump’s talk is the cheapest of all.
Every time his words have hinted at helping Ukraine, his actions have aligned instead with the Kremlin’s interests. That pattern has not changed. What has changed is only the vocabulary. Trump now speaks in the idiom of delay: yes, perhaps later; yes, when conditions are right; yes, if allies contribute.
Each “yes” followed by strategic inaction buys Moscow time.
The illusion of generosity
Tomahawks would let Ukraine reach deep into Russia—hitting refineries, command hubs, and oil terminals that sustain the war machine. Kyiv wants them desperately. The United States already possesses thousands, so in theory, the transfer is straightforward.
Yet the decision still sits on Trump’s desk—and nowhere else. And it sits because that is where he wants it. His White House has mastered the art of appearing undecided while ensuring that nothing moves.
Publicly, they frame it as “prudence.” In practice, it is paralysis by design.
Delay as a weapon
Under the Raymond Method’s second pillar—asymmetric warfare—delay is not a neutral state; it is an instrument of control.
Each week of “review” keeps Ukraine weaker and Russia safer. The mere possibility of Tomahawks forces Moscow to divert air defenses and to prepare politically—but without any actual transfer, Ukraine gains nothing concrete.
Trump’s team understands this. So does the Kremlin. The result is a convenient equilibrium: Trump appears cautious, Russia gains breathing room, and Kyiv is left waiting.
A forty-year pattern
Trump’s behavior fits a forty-year record of alignment with Russian interests—financial, political, and strategic. When the choice arises between empowering democracy or indulging autocracy, he indulges. The idea that this time is different—that a man so consistent in servility might now champion Ukrainian sovereignty—defies his entire public history.
There is no “new leaf.” There is only the same trunk, rooted in self-interest and covert support from Moscow.
The strategic cost
While Trump delays, Ukraine is forced to stockpile and improvise—building its own Flamingo missiles and planning a winter of deep strikes without Western reinforcement.
The cost is measured not only in lost time but in morale: allies hesitate, supply chains slow, and Russia continues to adapt its defenses. What could have been a decisive window of pressure may turn into just another season of attrition.
Bottom line
Tomahawks for Ukraine remain theoretically possible. Practically, they are hostage to Trump’s will—and Trump’s will, by history alone, serves the Kremlin. His Traitor-General pattern is not subtle: promise loudly, stall quietly, and deliver nothing.
Ukraine today cannot afford to believe otherwise.
So until the missiles move, the talk means nothing. And talk—cheap, empty, and perfectly timed to Moscow’s advantage—is all we are getting.
Comments