Tomahawk missiles were never feasible anyways by simply exploring a very basic concept... how is Ukraine supposed to launch them? Traditionally the only launchers have been on US Navy vessels, and the US Army has just started receiving the first batch of land based launchers.
Indeed. Since the piece was long enough as it is, I did not go into the launching specifics, content to keep it to a couple of statements like this parenthesis "(as well as the systems, infrastructure and teams to launch them (who would themselves become targets))", where the implication is exactly as you point out... a whole different ballgame in its own right. With decades of coordination, the UK launches them from naval platforms and others like Australia and Japan have been working on the integration with the US for years still with no end in sight.
So you are quite correct, land-based tomahawks to Ukraine would not be something simple to implement at all. The simplest method, which itself would be quite involved, would be having US personnel (whether technically US soldiers, Defense Dept or State Dept personnel, or private contractors) managing (if not completely running) the launching infrastructure, in the manner the US army is only very recently launching them (such as with a Typhoon battery, first deployed in 2023). As I noted in the article, these (US personnel) would become valid targets for the Russians themselves, and significantly increase the risk of direct confrontation between the US and Russia, which the article argues is the main driver of the Ukrainian request to begin with.
Since those aspects fit so well together and are so important, it would have been better to detail them further, even if it made the piece a bit longer. Appreciate you bringing it up.
Agree with your assessment in the three categories. Especially noteworthy is your emphasis on window dressing in regards to Ukraine’s various procurements, thanks for posting
On the economic front, is it not still pretty painful for the costs of refined products to have to increase, especially if they continue to increase.
And would it not have (v slowly) higher order effects, higher input costs leading to higher inflation, tight labour market but high inflation pushes higher wage inflation so inflation keeps rising. (Or kept a lid on with increasingly high interest rates that have their own effects).
No idea what level this would hit or on what time frame or at what point it would change the Russian calculation to continue, but something that would be interesting to hear your take on.
The American hegemony on the other hand has an increasing amount of fires to turn out as conflicts are rising due to a global energy crisis as the world is going down the Net Energy Cliff.
Tomahawk missiles were never feasible anyways by simply exploring a very basic concept... how is Ukraine supposed to launch them? Traditionally the only launchers have been on US Navy vessels, and the US Army has just started receiving the first batch of land based launchers.
Indeed. Since the piece was long enough as it is, I did not go into the launching specifics, content to keep it to a couple of statements like this parenthesis "(as well as the systems, infrastructure and teams to launch them (who would themselves become targets))", where the implication is exactly as you point out... a whole different ballgame in its own right. With decades of coordination, the UK launches them from naval platforms and others like Australia and Japan have been working on the integration with the US for years still with no end in sight.
So you are quite correct, land-based tomahawks to Ukraine would not be something simple to implement at all. The simplest method, which itself would be quite involved, would be having US personnel (whether technically US soldiers, Defense Dept or State Dept personnel, or private contractors) managing (if not completely running) the launching infrastructure, in the manner the US army is only very recently launching them (such as with a Typhoon battery, first deployed in 2023). As I noted in the article, these (US personnel) would become valid targets for the Russians themselves, and significantly increase the risk of direct confrontation between the US and Russia, which the article argues is the main driver of the Ukrainian request to begin with.
Since those aspects fit so well together and are so important, it would have been better to detail them further, even if it made the piece a bit longer. Appreciate you bringing it up.
Agree with your assessment in the three categories. Especially noteworthy is your emphasis on window dressing in regards to Ukraine’s various procurements, thanks for posting
On the economic front, is it not still pretty painful for the costs of refined products to have to increase, especially if they continue to increase.
And would it not have (v slowly) higher order effects, higher input costs leading to higher inflation, tight labour market but high inflation pushes higher wage inflation so inflation keeps rising. (Or kept a lid on with increasingly high interest rates that have their own effects).
No idea what level this would hit or on what time frame or at what point it would change the Russian calculation to continue, but something that would be interesting to hear your take on.
The American hegemony on the other hand has an increasing amount of fires to turn out as conflicts are rising due to a global energy crisis as the world is going down the Net Energy Cliff.
https://open.substack.com/pub/postliberaldispatch/p/america-talks-tough-acts-lost?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&shareImageVariant=overlay&r=5snknl
Thank you. I hope I can get to such a piece, I have bee wanting to for a long while.