It has been almost three years since the war between Russia and Ukraine has been fought, and it is no longer a hand-to-hand fight on the ground. To put it bluntly, it is a testing ground and consumption station for high-tech weapons. Previously, Ukraine used drones to bomb the Russian border, and Russia responded with missiles to Kiev. Although everyone was nervous, they felt that they were still within a "controllable" range.
But as soon as the "Tax" cruise missile appeared, the atmosphere changed.
Many people may not understand that Ukraine does not have missiles in its hands. Can't Britain's "Storm Shadow" and France's "SCALP" also fight long-range? Why does a "Tomahawk" make Putin so angry?
You have to look at the map. The range of the "strike axis", official data is more than 2,000 kilometers. What is this concept? You can draw a circle anywhere in western Ukraine. The entire European part of Russia, including the capital Moscow, the second largest city St. Petersburg, and even the Murmansk strategic nuclear submarine base as far away as the Arctic Circle, are all in this circle. This is tantamount to giving Ukraine a key that can knock on the Kremlin door at any time. In the past, Ukrainian guys could only harass Russia's border areas at most, and could not reach their confidants. Now, for the first time, Ukraine has the capability of strategic deterrence against Russia.
Moreover, the "Tomahawk" is not a fledgling. As early as the Gulf War in 1991, it became famous in World War I. At that time, the US military fired nearly 300 missiles in one breath, accurately paralyzing Iraq's air defense and command system, with a hit rate of over 80%. Later, in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, it was the first axe for the US military to open the way. This thing can fly at ultra-low altitude, drill against the ground or sea surface, and it is difficult for radar to detect it. Coupled with the precise guidance system, it means that if you hit your window, you won't touch the wall.
Although Russia has the S-400 and S-500, which are supposed to be the world's top air defense systems, but in the face of this low-air defense "old oil bar", it is also quite hard to intercept. Before intercepting Ukraine's drones and short-range missiles, the success rate may be a seven-eight percent.
This means that once Ukraine gets the “strike-axis”, the security pressure on Russia’s homeland will rise to an index level. Moscow citizens who could sleep peacefully before, may have to listen to air defense alerts every day later.
Putin’s “friendliness” and “unfriendliness”
Faced with this threat on his forehead, Putin's recent statement is very interesting. It can be said that it is both hard and soft, drawing two lines.
The first is "strategic contempt".Putin openly said that the "war ax" is not great and can not change the position on the battlefield.This word sounds a bit like a tough mouth, but you detail, in fact, is to listen to the United States and Russia. Don’t try to scare me with a weapon, Russia is not Iraq, we have enough means to counter it. The performance of Russia's "Kalibr" cruise missile is comparable to that of the "Tomahawk". If you hit me, I can also hit you. Moreover, the depth of my territory and air defense system are not vegetarian. At home, this is to stabilize people's hearts: don't panic, the sky can't fall, and the country has the ability to safeguard everyone's safety.
The second road is the real "red line". Putin said decisively: If Ukraine strikes Russia with a “strike ax”, the US-Russian relations will “completely collapse.” This sentence carries a very heavy weight. "Total collapse" in diplomatic rhetoric is basically equivalent to breaking off diplomatic relations, only one step away from direct war.
The United States, although it has always been delivering the knife to Ukraine, has left a line before it. For example, to the "Hamas" rocket cannon, specifically given is a short-range ammunition of 80 kilometers, is afraid of Ukraine to hit the Russian mainland and make things bigger. but the "war ax" is not the same, this thing was born to attack the enemy's deep strategic goals. If the United States gives it, it is equal to allow even encourage Ukraine to do so, it is undoubtedly completely tear down the only little strategic tactic between the United States and Russia.
Washington's abacus and the world's chessboard
So, will the United States take this dangerous step? Now, when the President and Vice President of the United States are asked about this matter, they are all vague, saying "under consideration" without saying giving or not giving.
This vague strategy is actually the consistent way the United States plays. Its core purpose is not to help Ukraine win quickly, but to make this war last long, to slowly dry up and crush Russia.
You think, if the United States really wants Ukraine to win, the F-16 fighter jets, the M1 main battle tanks should have opened up the supply, why should it give a little like toothpaste? it is to maintain a dynamic balance of "not destroying Ukraine, nor destroying Russia."
Now throw out the "Tomahawk" card and kill three birds with one stone: First, draw a pie for Ukraine so that they feel that they still have hope of turning the tables, continue to work hard on the battlefield, and don't easily negotiate with Russia. Second, we should test where Russia's bottom line lies and see how fierce Putin's reaction is to provide reference for subsequent decision-making. Third, show a gesture to European allies that the United States is unwavering in its determination to "resist Russia and aid Ukraine" and let everyone continue to follow the pace of the United States.
Russia is not a fool, it will not sit and wait for America to make a decision. When it feels that the red line may be touched, it will inevitably make the worst intentions in advance, and even take more radical actions to prevent it. This leads to the whole situation like a boiler constantly under pressure, and no one knows which link will last first.
If it gets out of control, who will win?
We might as well make a deduction. Assuming that the United States finally does hand over the "Tomahawk" to Ukraine, what will happen next?
When Ukraine gets this kind of treasure, it will definitely not leave it as a decoration. The most likely target is the economic lifeline of western Russia. For example, the large refineries along the Volga River account for more than 40% of Russia's fuel supply. Once destroyed, not only will Russian aircraft and tanks run out of fuel, but domestic oil prices in Russia will also soar, and people's livelihood and economy will be severely hit.
To be more ruthless, Ukraine may risk attacking Russia's strategic air bases and even nuclear facilities. Although these places are tightly guarded, the high precision of the "Tomahawk" makes anything possible. Once successful, it will be an unprecedented humiliation and blow, and the Putin government will face tremendous internal pressure.
In the face of this attack, Russia’s counterattack will inevitably be furious and there will be no more restraint. In the past, we may have deliberately avoided residential areas when attacking Kiev, but after the mainland was attacked by the "Tomahawk", Russia's retaliation is likely to escalate into an indiscriminate attack. Power plants, water plants, bridges, communications centers, and even the transit stations for NATO aid in western Ukraine will become legitimate targets for “caliber” missiles and high-speed supersonic missiles.
By then, Ukraine will be completely reduced to scorched earth, and the war will be completely out of control, and the risk of spillover will increase significantly.
So back to our initial question: Is Ukraine the biggest winner?
The answer is obviously no. Ukraine in this game is more like a chessboard rather than a chess player. It may be able to gain a temporary tactical advantage with the "Tax" and cause huge suffering to Russia, but this will not change the huge gap in the size and potential of the two countries in war. Russia's revenge will make Ukraine pay a more painful price. A broken country, even if it finally recovered all its territories, can be a winner?
So is the United States the winner? In the short term, it has successfully used the blood of Ukraine to drain Russia's national strength and weaken a strategic opponent. But in the long run, a Russia that has been pushed into a corner and completely torn off its face is a more dangerous existence for the United States and the world. US-Russia relations will be completely broken, the global nuclear arms control system will be completely eliminated, and the risk of a new cold war or even a hot war will rise sharply. At the same time, the European energy crisis, refugee crisis and economic recession caused by runaway war will eventually backfire to the United States itself.
Russia is even less likely to be the winner. Even if it ultimately wins miserably, it will be a Russia that has been severely weakened and isolated by the international community for a long time. The economy has gone back for decades, people's living standards have declined, and international status has plummeted.
So, you see, this escalation of the crisis triggered by the “Tax” has no winner at all. It is like a black hole that will drag all the parties involved, along with the peace and stability of the whole world, into the abyss.
We can only hope that those politicians who hold decision-making power can keep a little sober and rational at the last minute. Because in the shadow of nuclear weapons, the so-called "winner" is just the last person to fall.