Category News

Russia claims to be closely monitoring Ukraine’s request for long-range “Tomahawk” missiles, which might increase Kyiv’s ability to strike deep inside Russia.

The request comes as US President Donald Trump appears to be shifting his stance on support for Ukraine against Russia because of his growing frustration with President Vladimir Putin’s war push despite a meeting to discuss peace in Alaska in August.

Speaking to media on Monday, Russian government spokesperson Dmitry Peskov maintained that the weapons, if delivered, would not be a game-changer in the war. However, he suggested that the US might be breaking the red line Moscow had previously drawn in response to what it perceives as direct interference by Ukraine’s allies.

“As before, the question is: Who can launch these missiles?” … Can only Ukrainians launch them, or do American soldiers have to do that? Who determines the missiles’ target? The Ukrainians themselves or the American side? Peskov asked.

Moscow has previously stated that it will consider providing intelligence or targeting data as crossing the line. It has been suggested on numerous occasions that Russia might restart producing intermediate-range nuclear weapons and stationing similar missiles close to the West.

In a Monday post on Telegram, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned that such interference could result in a war with “weapons of mass destruction”.

What we know about the US’s position on Tomahawks and what it might mean to deliver them to Ukraine:

What weapons has Ukraine asked for and how has the US responded?

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine, said he requested the Tomahawk missiles when he met with President Donald Trump in New York on the occasion of the UN General Assembly last week.

In an effort to prevent an escalation of tensions with Putin, the US government under Joe Biden had previously prohibited Kyiv from using US weapons to attack Russia. Ukraine was allowed to target Russian positions in occupied territory.

Zelenskyy claimed that Trump had told him that Ukraine could retaliate against Russian strikes in a similar manner, such as by attacking Ukraine’s energy infrastructure if Russia attacked Ukraine’s energy resources in an interview with Axios last week.

US Vice President JD Vance confirmed to Fox News on Sunday that Kyiv has requested that the US government be taking Tomahawks in the delivery of the aircraft. Vance did not reveal details, but said that Trump would be making the “final determination”.

Meanwhile, US Special Envoy to Ukraine Keith Kellogg made a comment on the request later on Sunday during a separate Fox News interview. There are no such things as sanctuaries, according to Kellygg, who claimed that the Trump administration already gave Kyiv the right to launch deep attacks on Russia in specific circumstances.

How do Tomahawk missiles work?

Tomahawks, which can be launched from ships, submarines, or ground launchers, are long-range subsonic cruise missiles. They have long-range, deep-strike capabilities, and can hit targets 1, 250km-2, 500km (777-1, 553 miles) away.

They carry high-explosive warheads designed to pierce military bunkers and other hardened targets. Tomahawks also fly quickly because they maintain low altitude while avoiding radar detection by moving at high subsonic speeds.

The US Navy has used Tomahawks since the 1970s. US weapons company RTX is the only company making missiles right now.

What makes Ukraine want Tomahawks?

Kyiv has long been requesting powerful long-range missiles to strike deep inside Russia, but its Western allies, which form the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), have mostly been reluctant to risk a bigger conflict by agreeing to provide these.

Some have since censured their position and given Ukraine more freedom over how it uses the weapons it does possess.

Former US President Joe Biden eased restrictions on the launch of US missiles just before his election-year, partly because Trump had stated he would not support Ukraine further during his presidency.

In May 2023, the UK began delivering the British and France-built Storm Shadow (or SCALP in France), a long-range missile weighing 1, 300kg (2, 866 pounds), and with a range of about 250km (155 miles). The UK then granted Kyiv the right to directly use its weapons against Russia in August 2024.

A long-range surface-to-surface missile artillery system capable of hitting targets up to 300 kilometers (186 miles) away, the US sent Ukraine its Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) in April 2024.

Both the Storm Shadow and ATACMS systems are limited in range and explosives compared to Tomahawks, however.

Ukraine has developed its own drone-missile systems, including the turbo-jet drone Paliantysia, which Kyiv claims can hit targets located 650 kilometers (404 miles) away from its allies’ restrictions on the use of their weapons.

The Flamingo, a ground-launched missile that Ukraine claims can target locations up to 3, 000 kilometers (1, 864 miles) away, was also unveiled in August, but it’s not clear if it has actually launched one.

Marina Miron, an analyst at King’s College, London, told Al Jazeera that, based on data shared by Ukraine, a Flamingo may in fact have better range and destructive capabilities than a Tomahawk. She noted that Ukraine may still be asking for US missiles for primarily strategic reasons.

“It might be interesting to see how Russia reacts because Ukraine also understands that firing a missile like that might entice Russia to use more force,” Miron said.

Regardless, if Kyiv receives the Tomahawk weapons, analysts say it could significantly expand Ukraine’s strike capabilities and allow it to hit targets deep inside Russian territory, including military bases, logistics hubs, airfields and command centres.

Russian expert Keir Giles, a member of the UK think tank Chatham House, claimed that the missiles would also stifle Russia’s front-line defense strategies.

Giles referred to the Russian military’s strategy of hunkering just outside the range of missile launches launched from Ukraine, and said, “deep strikes would be targeted on significant military installations and ensuring that Russia can no longer hide behind the front lines.”

However, Miron argued that while Tomahawks would undoubtedly hurt Russia, the damage would be limited. Is Russia going to have to resign from Ukraine? She said, “I don’t believe it.”

President Zelenskyy himself has suggested Ukraine might not actually need to use long-range US missiles against Russia if it has possession of them. He claimed in an interview with Axios that powerful missiles could be used as a merely a means of influencing Russia’s willingness to accept peace.

Zelenskyy told Axios, “We need it, but that doesn’t mean we’ll use it.” “Because if we will have it, I think it’s additional pressure on Putin to sit and speak”, he said.

If the US sent Tomahawks to Ukraine, what might Russia say?

Russia perceives Western support for Ukraine as a potential “threat of force”, but is unlikely to take drastic action, analysts say.

Western nations have continued to provide humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine despite Moscow’s veiled threats.

Sergey Lavrov, the country’s foreign minister, reiterated Russia’s position at the UNGA last week. “Threats of force against Russia … are becoming increasingly common. Such provocations have been repeatedly refuted by President Putin.

Russia has never had such intentions and does not, but he warned that any aggression against my nation would be met with a swift response.

Giles said Moscow often makes threats, but mostly as a scare tactic, and that Russia is particularly careful with the US. Washington would be expected to respond in response to an attack on any NATO member, just like it would for all other NATO members.

Analysts believe Russia may be “testing” NATO’s willingness to use military force despite recent Russian drone incursions that have raised concerns about the potential for military action.

” Russia says everything is a red line, “Giles said”. Russia would not choose to pursue the nuclear option. Because they are aware of how disastrous it would be, Russia would be least interested in engaging in combat with a unified bloc, especially with the US.

What is Europe’s response to threats from Russia?

The Tomahawk discussion has not received any comments from European leaders.

However, the bloc has been rattled by a recent series of incursions into its airspace by Russian drones and aircraft.

Poland briefly secluded itself from Russian airspace on Sunday in preparation for a Russian attack on Ukraine. That occurred on September 9 when Polish and NATO fighters shot down 20 Russian drones in Polish skies. That marked the first time a NATO member had directly engaged with Russian military assets since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Estonia reported last week that three Russian MiG-31 jets, which were “armed with missiles and ready to fight,” had entered its airspace for 12 minutes before being forced to leave. The UN Security Council’s emergency meeting was called by the nation after the incursion, at which allies criticized Moscow.

On Monday, Denmark banned all drone flights for a week after it repeatedly sighted drones over its airspace, including last week, when several airports were forced to shut down.

In September, drone sightings in Romania, Latvia, Norway, Germany, and France were also reported.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz made the claim that Moscow is trying to undermine continent unity at a media event in Düsseldorf on Monday. Germany has refused to deliver its long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine for fear of escalation with Russia, and has not changed its stance.

Jimmy Kimmel, the late-night talk show host, was suspended on September 17 for his remarks regarding Charlie Kirk’s passing. Following widespread upheaval, he was reinstated a few days later.

Kimmel read Donald Trump’s post on Truth Social, saying, “I can’t believe ABC fake news gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back,” in his first return on air.

Kimmel responded, “You can’t believe they gave me my job back,” without a second thought. I find it hard to believe we gave you your job back.

I wanted to know, Jimmy, why not, while the liberal crowd roared appreciatively. I think it’s true.

liberal illusion

Kimmel is back on television, and Americans’ liberal elite can breathe a collective sigh of relief. Because it allows them to return to their blissful slumber, ignore reality, cling to cognitive dissonance, denial, ahistorical wishful thinking, and the complicity that is essential to white supremacy within a white supremacist order, not because liberals and their Democratic Party have learned from the incident and used it as an opportunity to galvanise meaningful opposition to Trump’s authoritarian surge.

Liberals don’t actually consider Trump and his supporters to be a significant threat. They believe the pendulum will eventually swing back to the trustworthy liberal system after a brief period of time.

Liberals don’t even share the policy tenets of Trump’s core, in fact. After all, both the right-wing and liberal elites are devoted servants of empire, giving it a veneer of humanitarianism.

Both organizations back policies that perpetuate the oppression of the poor and underrepresented populations, including extractivism and militarism abroad and labor exploitation, mass incarceration, militarised policing, censorship, and corruption through corporate donations. With discussions of diversity, rule of law, and human rights, the liberals have put their spin on all of these.

The liberals have focused on the left as the biggest threat, while supporting the right. They have attacked it not only within the partisan ranks, but they have also ignored attempts by the right to obstruct it. The revolutionary left, which is the only real threat to the current capitalist oppressive system, is being marginalized.

Liberals frequently ignore challenges to fundamental freedoms and rights, including the right to protest and the right to free speech.

The liberal establishment has thus contributed to the spread of fascism both domestically and internationally.

The Palestinian problem

The US’s descent into fascism is illustrated by the suppression of the struggle for freedom, equality, and justice in Palestine.

Liberal leaders promoted the two-state solution and an endless “peace process” that supported and justified apartheid and disenfranchisement in Palestine even before the genocide that Israel committed in Gaza. By continuing to give Israel military aid and offering unreserved support for its more brutal and bloody massacres against the Palestinian population, they kept the American weapons manufacturers happy.

In line with a political consensus to combat resistance to US/Israeli criminality, the liberal Democrats introduced and supported anti-boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) laws and resolutions across Congress and state legislatures, along with their Republican counterparts. Additionally, they backed the false definition of anti-Semitism used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which targets and targets principled opposition.

Liberals and the Biden administration continued to run interference for Israel while further undermining international law as Palestinian civilians were subjected to carpet bombing, torture, kidnapping, and starvation at the start of the genocide. It supported harsh crackdowns on anti-genocide protesters, which may have cost Democrats the election, and silenced Palestinian voices at the Democratic National Convention.

Trump’s authoritarian policies were laid the groundwork for this crackdown on dissent against the US-Israeli genocide.

The Republican-aligned Heritage Foundation unveiled “Project Esther” in October 2024, a strategic blueprint designed to sabotage anti-colonial resistance by vilifying activism, scholarship, and higher education as a whole, prior to Trump taking office.

Liberals are still holding themselves accountable for their roles in the current predicament, but these Orwellian measures are already fully in motion.

echoes from the past

The liberal establishment of today is repeating a tragic farce while opportunistically marginalizing left-wing policies and rolling out the red carpet for the right, effectively stifling the wheels of the fascist rollercoaster.

German liberals struck similar agreements with reactionary elites in the 1920s and the early 1930s, putting socialism, the loss of some privileges, as a greater threat than fascism, and elevating “order” and “peace” above justice. Adolf Hitler’s rise, which culminated in World War II, was aided by their support of communist and anarchist targets.

Trump waltzes boldly as he trashes the US Constitution while the coy and cautious US liberals of today are content with the status quo and shy away from confrontation. Today’s liberals are joining in silencing and scapegoating the left in place of challenging reactionaries, much like Weimar liberals did when they tiptoed around fascism until it was too late.

Even as Trump begins to violate the unspoken rule of the US ruling class, which is to steal from anyone, just don’t cannibalize your own, is still in effect.

Nothing in the liberal mindset has changed since Trump’s first term, as demonstrated by Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock’s iconic Saturday Night Live skit after his first election, where Trump watches the results come in for him. Chappelle deadpans, “Oh my God, I think America is racist,” as a shocked white liberal sighs. “You know, I remember my great-grandfather told me something like that. Like, he was a slave or something.

Despite his numerous flaws, Trump is able to accurately acknowledge the duplicity, corruption, and weakness of liberal politics.

After Kimmel was reinstated, he retorted on Truth Social, saying, “Why would they want someone back who plays 99% of the Democrat GARBAGE and is so poorly, who isn’t funny, and who puts the Network in danger?” See how we fare. When I pursued them, I received 16 million dollars. Even more lucrative seems to be this one. A truly “lot of losers”

The audience chuckled more than usual.

The liberals are once more blatantly causing chaos by applauding and laughing at the chaos while placating the political parties’ campaign funds.