By Eric Zuesse
Eric's Substack
October 1, 2025
Earlier today, I had headlined "Trump Now Considers a U.S. Invasion of Russia", and readers were incredulous; one commented "In what world do you imagine America having enough troops to invade Moscow without the logistical problems to make such happen?" to which I replied "Sending U.S. troops into Russia would be unnecessary in order to do this. You are thinking in old-technology terms like during WW2, but a WW3 would be entirely different and be over within an hour or two - none of it would entail invading troops." Later in the day, Stephen Bryen, now retired but who has been the CEO of one of America's biggest armaments-producers, and a top official at the Pentagon (which is that corporation's main customer), headlined "Tomahawks for Kiev: A Dangerous Idea", and he provided in greater depth of detail, from his own extensive expertise on weaponry, the historical background and technological details on why a U.S. President would need to be insane in order to even consider to allow Tomahawk missiles to become posted in Ukraine. So, I shall now quote from his excellent unquestionably expert account:
The US is poised to "sell" Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. US special envoy to Ukraine, retired general Keith Kellogg, says only the final decision has to be made. The US has already agreed, Kellogg said, for deep attacks on Russian territory, and only the release of the Tomahawks is pending, a decision left to US President Donald Trump. While it may be regarded as an open and shut case by Washington, that does not take away the decision as reckless and escalatory. It puts the US on a direct collision-course with Russia, one that could lead to a war in Europe.
The Tomahawk cruise missile was originally intended to give the US nuclear triad a system that could successfully deliver nuclear weapons against the USSR. The idea was to create a system that was nearly impossible for Soviet air defenses to counter, after it became clear that conventional bombers, especially the B-52, could not operate from high altitude over Soviet territory.
Tomahawk was designed to fly "nap of the earth: missions. That is, once it was over Soviet airspace, it was designed to drop down to near tree-top heights and follow the contours of the earth, making timely detection difficult if not impossible....
Should the US deliver Tomahawks to Ukraine, the missiles would have to be operated either by US or UK technicians and would need to be supported by US overhead intelligence to select targets and program the missiles to hit them. Russia will regard the Tomahawks as a direct US intervention, and in fact there is no convenient way the US could deny it is operating the weapons. This means that if Trump authorizes the missiles, he also is directing the US military (or surrogate British) to use them against Russia....
The Trump administration is operating on the assumption that Russia's economy is teetering on the brink of collapse and the Tomahawks could help "seal the deal" and force the collapse of the Putin regime....
One of the reasons why the US is seeking to try for a knock-out blow on Putin and Russia is Washington's fear that Russia may launch a new, devastating offensive in Ukraine aimed at regime change there....
How far Russia would go when provoked directly by the United States should be carefully assessed in Washington before it embarks on a venture that could backfire and lead to a wider war in Europe.
I would point out here that though Dr. Bryen is warning about "a wider war in Europe," what is actually involved is a war between the U.S. and Russia, because the U.S. would be a direct participant in the usage of these missiles - as Bryen himself noted, "the missiles would have to be operated either by US or UK technicians and would need to be supported by US overhead intelligence to select targets and program the missiles to hit them. Russia will regard the Tomahawks as a direct US intervention, and in fact there is no convenient way the US could deny it is operating the weapons. This means that if Trump authorizes the missiles, he also is directing the US military (or surrogate British) to use them against Russia."
Yes, America's participating allies (such as UK) would also be involved in this invasion of Russia - and Ukraine itself, naturally would be - but no such war would encompass ONLY "a wider war in Europe": it would instead be the world-annihilating WW3 that until recent decades was considered to be unacceptable even by the American Government (which has now gone entirely batty in its neoconservatism - its conviction that the U.S. Government must rule the entire world).
Dr. Bryen also points out that Trump's objective, if he okays this proposal, would be regime-change in Russia, and that this goal by the White House is based on "Washington's fear that Russia may launch a new, devastating offensive in Ukraine aimed at regime change there."
In short: the U.S. Government is considering to do this because it opposes regime-change in Ukraine. Think about that for a moment: It is saying that the U.S. Government is considering to force a regime-change in Russia so as to prevent a regime-change in Ukraine. It is ignoring that the result, if Washington decides to do this, will be no mere "regime-change" in one country but the destruction of the entire world (something that Dr. Bryen provides no hint that he recognizes to be involved here).
Consequently, Dr. Bryen's headline "Tomahawks for Kiev: A Dangerous Idea" vastly understates what this would be: the destruction of our entire planet. And the purpose of this venture, if Trump decides to authorize it? If Dr. Bryen is correct here, the purpose of it would be to prevent regime-change in Ukraine.
This article was originally published on Eric's Substack.