Tomahawks for Ukraine: U.S. launches hybrid war

1. The change in Trump’s positions is linked to two things: Putin's exit from productive negotiations and Russia’s escalating posture in Europe. The U.S. does not want to fight directly but is demonstrating to Russia that it is ready to strike indirectly.

2. Yesterday’s strike on Belgorod and the temporary blackout in the city appear to be part of this new phase of "indirect" hybrid war. The day before, Zelenskyy stated that attempts to black out Ukraine would lead to a blackout in Moscow. Next came the strike on Belgorod (Russians wailing that it was done with foreign weapons), then J.D. Vance said Trump was considering providing Tomahawks, and finally Kellogg announced that Trump allowed strikes deep inside Russia with no inviolable targets.

3. The U.S. is clearly raising the stakes. And Russia fully understands that the main targets will be oil and gas transit ports and pumping stations. The possibility of causing a blackout in Moscow is minimal, but halting oil exports is entirely feasible. Now Russia must either deliver a severe response (which is actually impossible) or continue posturing and claiming victories on all fronts.

4. The theoretical deployment of Tomahawks is not the end of the war but a new escalation. I understand that many people will start complaining about the counterproductivity of this development (to put it mildly). In reality, the situation is such that all other options are worse, since Putin has de facto exited the negotiation process and there is currently no chance of stabilization or peace talks.

5. It seems we are entering a period of serious new escalation, which will last for the next several months.

At the same time, it is important to remember:

• The U.S., at least for now, continues to think in terms of resuming negotiations with Russia.
• Russia has raised the stakes with the main goal of breaking up the EU and Ukraine and forcing the EU to be so scared that it agrees to all conditions in exchange for its own security, including at least partial lifting of sanctions. Ukraine's main diplomatic task is to prevent exactly this scenario.

6. Against this backdrop, attention should be paid to a sociological study conducted by the analytical center Dilova Stolytsia (Business Capital) on Ukrainians’ attitudes toward the war’s duration and possible peace negotiations. Several key aspects stand out:

• Corruption remains, as usual, a bigger problem than the war. This is the main challenge for the entire political class, which operates in an electoral logic that does not exist. The people demand rapid anti-corruption measures, which are inherently impossible. This issue will therefore be the main trigger for all political life in Ukraine, with all corresponding consequences.
• Society is realistic about the war. There are no expectations of a quick end to hostilities. Partly this is realism, partly everyone is already embedded in the war in one way or another. Looking far ahead, it should be noted that exiting the war will be a stress that political technologists generally do not anticipate.
• Division over negotiations (39% vs. 30%) and disbelief in effective negotiations (54%) create a bad situation, generating serious turbulence in society. This is one of the main problematic points for Ukrainian society, both horizontally and vertically. Under such conditions, there is a strong temptation to fall into populism and attempt to aggressively expand (stabilize) one’s electoral bubble.

Source

About the author. Vadym Denysenko, political scientist.

The editorial team does not always share the opinions expressed by blog or column authors.