On October 6th, Trump said, "I have roughly decided", which immediately made the global nerves tense. He was talking about providing Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine.
As it turns out, all from Putin to Medvedev were on the line, warning one by one.On October 17, Trump was to meet Zelensky at the White House, with only two days left to count back.
On the one hand, the missile is ready to be loaded, and on the other hand, Russia shows the shadow of "nuclear option". What kind of reminder does this contest as far away as Europe send to China?
The gunpowder smell of war collides head-on with the nuclear game
Trump is not just speaking this time as before.Behind his "I hope to know how they will use these missiles" is that the decision-making process has moved to a specific deployment stage.
The meeting on October 17th became the last threshold. As long as Zelensky gives a "reasonable usage", these "Tomahawks" may be on the road directly.
In order to avoid the label of "direct participation in the war", the United States may let a NATO member state act as a transit station, leaving a little ambiguity and symbolically "hiding".
The Kremlin spokesman, Peskov, said at first that if it did, it would be a serious escalation.The Russian Foreign Ministry also spoke at first that it would lead Russian-US relations to irreversible destruction.
However, what is more noteworthy than these diplomatic rhetoric is a point mentioned by Putin. He said that Ukraine simply cannot use the "Tomahawk" by itself, and this sentence directly hits the point.
The problem is that the missile needs ultra-high-precision three-dimensional geographic maps to plan the attack path, and this level of intelligence is only in the hands of the United States.
The subtitle of this is that if Ukraine is really used, then the manipulator behind it is the United States, which is equivalent to directly unlocking the mask of the "agent war".
Looking at the "Tax" itself, its capabilities are far less comparable to the existing weapons of the Ukrainian army. The range covers 2,500 kilometers, the target is no longer the front of the battlefield, but Russia's deep-seated core military facilities.
More importantly, there are several models of "strike axes", some of which are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Even if this is the conventional type, the problem is not small.
When the missile flew over, the other party couldn't tell whether it was nuclear or conventional on the spot. This uncertainty is the most dangerous part of the nuclear game.
Medvedev has also been very blunt recently, saying that if he really hits Russia,"everyone will be in trouble, especially Trump."
This sounds like a personal grievance, but in fact, it is drawing a line for the United States. If you really step forward, we won't sit and wait.
This kind of blurred boundaries of war risk is not empty talk. missile flight time is short, the decision window is narrow, once the wrong judgment, the consequences are not more than a partial conflict escalation, can directly break into the nuclear threshold.
Russia doesn't take it
The message that the United States wanted to convey this time was clear: by providing a “tactical ax” to Ukraine, a stronger strike capability, thereby putting pressure on Russia.
Medvedev's speech didn't say "what do we do" positively, but it conveyed a meaning inside and outside the words. If you move, we won't tell you how to fight back in advance. This ambiguity is essentially creating psychological pressure.
As a result, after the US supplies missiles, the situation is difficult to control itself.If Ukraine really hit the Russian mainland, the United States must consider: is this not my backpacker?
For Trump, the risks are much greater than he imagined. He needs to show a tough guy image at home and also has to respond to the Republican Party's call that "we must be tough on Russia." At the same time, he himself has said that he wants to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
These men must take care that once the missile causes a big deal, he not only fails to solve the problem, but may become the culprit of lighting larger barrels of fire.
European allies may not be willing to accompany the United States on this path. France and Germany already had doubts about long-term conflicts. Now that Russia "scares" them, they are more likely to choose to wait and see. The United States wants to strengthen its alliance through missiles, which may also make the interior more relaxed.
From an operational point of view, Russia has not followed the old path of "equivalent retaliation" with the United States. It didn't say that I would also give missiles to a certain country, nor did it say that I would kill Ukraine directly. What it does is to use vague language to create uncertainty and leave the United States to bear the consequences.
This tactic relies not on weapons, but psychological levers. Its brilliance is that it does not require a lot of resources to be invested or immediate retaliation. It is enough to let the opponent hesitate, worry, and weigh when making decisions.
Putin also said before that Russia will not take the initiative to fight, but defending itself "can be done in any way." Such words sound empty, but they are actually part of psychological warfare. Its function is not to scare anyone, but to make the other side have to weigh the price in every move.
China should learn what it should learn and guard against what it should guard against
Although this play is staged in Europe, China has to keep an eye on it. Because the operations of the United States in the Asia-Pacific side are simply carved out of the same mold as those in Ukraine.
For example, Japan signed a contract with the United States and bought 400 Tomahawks. In the next few years, these missiles will be deployed to Japanese destroyers in Haizi. Once combat strength is formed, the situation in the entire East China Sea and East China Sea will become more complicated.
U.S. forces have already deployed the Tifon system in the Philippines during the so-called “Joint Military Exercises”, which includes “Tax” missiles. Not only are they deployed, but also train local forces.
In this situation, China does not need to pursue quantitative reciprocity, nor does it need to ignore the American approach.More importantly, it is important to learn the dialectical "ambiguous counterattack", so that the situation is back in control.
For example, it can be made clear that any “war ax” launched from Japan or its allied bases, regardless of who pushes the button, will be seen as a serious threat to China.
Because when the missile flew, no one had time to compare the identity of the controller or the nature of the warhead. Since it can't be distinguished, treat it uniformly.
This is said not only to the United States, but also to the Japanese people. You have to let them know that allowing the deployment of such offensive weapons is not "defense", but putting themselves at nuclear risk.
Especially in Japan, and also in the shell of the Peace Constitution, once the domestic anti-war sentiment warms up, the government is not so good to push forward.
The same goes for the Philippines. If the situation really escalates one day, the missile base deployed by the US military there is likely to become the target of the first round of strikes. It is impossible for Filipinos to not understand this truth at all.
Furthermore, China can also reverse pressure: since you want to deploy offensive weapons around us, you have to bear the potential consequences. If you don't want your allies to be drawn into a major power conflict, you'd better take it yourself.
Such responses do not require the use of new weapons or increased military spending. The effect of strategic containment can be achieved through words alone.
The key is to make the logic clear and let the other party know that you have no bottom line or want to go to war, but remind them that it will be difficult for everyone to get to that point.
This strategy not only conforms to China's consistent position, but also shows strategic flexibility. Don't take the initiative to pick things up, and don't give the other party loopholes to exploit. For China, this is a safer response.
Conclusion:
The last 48 hours of the "Tax" assistance to Ukraine, looked like an ordinary military aid decision, but in fact has long slipped into the border zone of nuclear deterrence of the great powers.
Trump has to choose between tough and safe, and Russia has already thrown vague risks back to him.
For China, this is not far away.The U.S. is following the same scenario in Asia-Pacific.With its simple response, rather than layout in advance.
Flexible strategic ambiguity and appropriate discourse pressure may be more effective than piling up arms. The real game never depends on who yells loudly, but on who makes the other party hesitate more.
Reference: Russia's resolute attitude toward the "tacks" has given China a wake-up point
2025-10-14 19:40 · Direct News