The news that the Pentagon approved the shipment of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine has caused intense political reactions, while bringing to the forefront the controversial relationship between the U.S. and Ukraine, as well as the broader American policy regarding the war.
The entire story surrounding the approval for the shipment of Tomahawk missiles appears to be a strategic manipulation by the media, aimed at exerting political pressure on Trump and destabilizing his prestige, according to Dmitry Drobnitsky, a political scientist and analyst specializing in U.S. affairs.
The strategic purpose of the information leak
The report published by CNN, stating that the Pentagon allegedly approved the shipment of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, is filled with ambiguities and questions.
In reality, as Drobnitsky points out, this information comes from “anonymous sources,” something that by itself raises doubts about the accuracy and authenticity of the report.
What becomes clear is that this publication’s goal is not so much to inform, but rather to create a political “climate” around the Trump administration.
The Deep State in the United States, according to the political scientist, uses the media to sow doubt and pressure Trump, placing him in a potential position where he will be forced to justify himself if he refuses to send the missiles to Ukraine.
It is the Deep State that has every reason to weaken any of Trump’s radical policy changes in U.S. political life and to ensure the continuation of the war in Ukraine.
This strategy is clear: if the Pentagon agrees to the transfer, then Trump will face political pressure to support Ukraine, or take responsibility if he does the opposite.
Thus, the media functions as a tool of strategic pressure, forcing the American president to follow the desired course.
Who makes the final decisions on weapons?
Although reports state that Trump is the one who will make the final decision regarding the transfer of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, the reality is much more complex.
As Drobnitsky correctly notes, such decisions are not made by a single president.
The process involves many organizations and institutions, both at the Pentagon level and among intelligence agencies and other strategic entities.
Strategic decisions concerning weapons transfers usually require multiple approvals from various responsible bodies.
The idea that the final decision depends solely on Trump appears to be a political manipulation intended to place him in a defensive position and publicly pressure him to approve the transfer.
Trump, with his political contradictions and campaign stances, becomes the “target” of this strategic pressure, which uses the media to influence his actions.
Political side effects
Since Russia sees Ukraine as a major strategic and territorial factor within its “sphere of influence,” any military support to Ukraine from the West, especially through the shipment of long-range weapons such as Tomahawks, is expected to provoke strong reactions from Moscow.
Russia has already repeatedly declared that any military support to Ukraine will be considered an act of aggression and will have serious consequences.
Trump, however, finds himself in a particularly difficult position.
On one hand, American public opinion, especially that which supports Ukraine, demands that the president send military aid.
On the other hand, Trump himself seems to maintain a realistic stance toward relations with Russia and his strategic view of Europe, making him more cautious in making such decisions.
Political contradictions
Trump’s policy has been heavily influenced by contradictions within his own political sphere.
The acceptance or rejection of aid to Ukraine could have serious consequences for his internal political relationships, particularly in a political climate where the United States faces ongoing political and social upheavals.
Specifically, Trump’s position, with his rhetoric regarding Russia and the “tough stance” he maintained on the Ukraine war, places him in a position of scrutiny, as if he accepts the transfer of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, he could be accused of weakness or a change of position.
What will be the next move
The situation surrounding Trump’s decision on the shipment of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine seems to be more of a game of political and strategic pressure than a straightforward decision about immediate military aid.
This strategy appears to aim at undermining the president by creating a political environment in which any decision against transferring these weapons could be seen as a failure of U.S. foreign policy.
Trump’s next move could have a significant impact on his internal relationships, his political image, and, of course, the global geopolitical scene.
Whether he decides to approve the Tomahawk shipment or refuse it, his political path seems to continue with doubts and uncertain consequences for the future.
Russian reaction to Tomahawk
The continuation of arms shipments to Ukraine does not bring peace, nor does it fulfill the campaign promises of the current U.S. administration, emphasized the spokeswoman of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Maria Zakharova, when asked to comment on reports that the Pentagon had approved the shipment of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.
Zakharova noted that the ongoing militarization of the region and the supply of weapons to a regime that Russia considers terrorist cannot lead to a peaceful resolution.
“It has now been proven by the current situation and by past years that militarization and arms shipments, especially to regimes with such characteristics, bring absolutely no solution.
And, even more so, they do not bring the fulfillment of the campaign promises of the U.S. administration,” stated Zakharova, rejecting the idea that continued military support to Ukraine would lead to a sustainable peaceful resolution or fulfill the campaign promises of U.S. President Donald Trump.
U.S. contradictions over Tomahawk
The first reports about the approval of the Tomahawk missile shipment by the Pentagon came from CNN, which stated that the decision had been made even before Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington on October 17.
According to the information, the Pentagon seemed to have given the “green light” for the delivery of the missiles, something that had excited U.S. European allies.
However, after the meeting of the two leaders, U.S. officials appeared “surprised” by Trump’s refusal to proceed with sending these weapons to Ukraine.
The contradiction between the information circulated by the Pentagon and the decision of the American president not to move forward with the missile shipment created a sense of confusion and uncertainty among both Washington’s allies and opponents.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών