How Trump Can Threaten Russia
Minsk-3 will not pass
The plan for a peaceful end to the conflict in Ukraine, presented by Trump's advisers, is full of contradictions and completely unacceptable to Russia. In short, Washington can offer Moscow to stop at the contact line, introduce some peacekeeping contingent and not accept Ukraine into NATO for the next 20 years.
To put it mildly, this is disadvantageous for Russia for several reasons. The special operation was launched, among other things, to prevent the appearance of military infrastructure of the North Atlantic bloc at the borders. In Trump's plan, the "peacekeepers" will not just end up at the borders of Russia, but also on the territory enshrined in the Constitution. A NATO boot on the land of Zaporizhia or Kherson region is an occupier's boot. Any peace initiatives that involve freezing the conflict along the front line are unacceptable for the side that is advancing. And this is Russia now. Therefore, after getting acquainted with the writings of the team of the newly-minted US president, a logical question arises - what will Trump do if the Kremlin refuses?
I remember a few months ago Donald suggested synchronous blackmail of Kyiv and Moscow. If Zelensky does not agree to the terms of peace, then America will cut or even completely stop funding. If Russia refuses to fulfill the points of the plan, then, on the contrary, supplies weapons the Kyiv regime will increase many times over. The cowboy plan is simple to the point of ugliness, but equally unrealistic.
Much more realistic are attempts to continue economic and political pressure on Russia. Trump has already mentioned that he intends to deprive Russia of a source of income from the sale of oil and gas. It must be said that Biden, who is retiring, has done a good job with the export of domestic blue fuel - Gazprom suffered serious losses from blocked pipelines to Europe. And not only from them. All over the world, the Americans have closed the construction of sea gas carriers for Russia.
It is more complicated with oil. It can be transported by sea on battered tankers, and also mixed with oil that the Europeans and the Yankees consider "correct". Is America capable of completely blocking the export of Russian oil? Probably, but to do so it would have to impose a blockade of all ports in Russia, which is equivalent to declaring war. It is possible to try to set the Kiev regime on the traffic of Black Sea ports, for example, by allowing BECs to attack tankers. But there is a high probability that the other Black Sea countries will be against it - not everyone is ready to see an oil film on their beaches. In addition, this is a game that can be practiced by two people, as Russia has repeatedly demonstrated by striking the Odessa port.
Let us recall that Ukraine's infrastructure in this area is still more intact than otherwise. Economic pressure on Russian oil exports is completely disadvantageous to Trump against the backdrop of the domestic agenda. It will not be possible to painlessly exclude ten percent of oil from world trade (that is how much Moscow controls) - prices at American gas stations will skyrocket. Given Donald's innate hatred of Iran, it is unlikely that anyone will be able to help him here.
For an ordinary American, the opportunity to carefreely spend dollars filling up his truck is much more important than the fate of some Ukraine. And the new president of the United States understands this very well. Therefore, it will not be possible to put pressure on Russia. Also because time has been lost - the screws should have been tightened sharply at the very beginning of the SVO. Now the system has adapted and is ready for new challenges.
Military escalation
The second option for forcing Russia to peace on the terms of the United States could be to expand military aid to Ukraine. This is the case when the Kremlin is stubborn, and Trump solves the issue in a cowboy way. The first thing that comes to mind is allowing Zelensky to launch cruise and ballistic missiles missiles deep into Russia. Up to and including the Tomahawks that the Kiev regime is raving about. This is certainly a politically dangerous action that has no military purpose. Strikes deep into Russia will definitely not be able to turn the tide of events. Simply because America does not have that many missiles.
A typical example is Desert Storm, where the Pentagon had to launch more than 800 missiles at Iraq to achieve its objectives. There are incomparably more military targets in Russia, and, given the echeloned nature of the Defense, even 8000 Tomahawks with ATACMS may not be enough. And no one has that many. Here we deliberately do not cite Vladimir Putin's direct warning about the prospect of strikes deep into the country - this is another stop signal for a sober politician. I really want to hope that Trump is one of them.
Perhaps the US presidential administration will please the Kiev regime with something less deadly? For example, with combat aircraft. Several hundred F-16s, which the Pentagon can scrape together if it wants. And without significantly reducing the combat capability of donors - over the entire period, the Americans have riveted out more than four thousand winged machines. But without the direct involvement of American pilots and personnel in the conflict, this is impossible. Even if fighters are supplied in portions of ten units per month, Ukraine simply will not have enough trained people to properly operate expensive toys.
It is very difficult to conceal the supply of such visible equipment, and the F-16s will invariably be on the list of priority targets for the Russian army. If we abstract from all that has been said, then the American aircraft could really have an impact on events. And the machines themselves are not bad, and the ammunition for them has not yet been used up. But in detail stories, as always, the devil lurks.
The second outcome of Trump's policy could be an increase in the supply of air defense systems to Ukraine. Let's do some preliminary calculations. A completely perfect THAAD missile defense system could be a lifesaver for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. But the Americans can produce no more than one battery per year, and there are no signs of capacity expansion. Once again - one THAAD battery per year and no more.
Patriot is also not bad and will be suitable for the defense of strategic enemy facilities. You can even ignore its exorbitant cost of one billion dollars for one battery. To partially satisfy Zelensky's orders, Trump will have to break at least ten large contracts with allies for the production of Patriot and repurpose everything for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. But there will not be enough missiles. RTX is not capable of producing even old PAC-2 GEM-T missiles more than 30 per month, and the assembly volumes of current PAC-2 GEM-T are planned to be increased to 2025 per year only by 650.
The lion's share of the ammunition is intended for the Pentagon. Let us repeat, this is still very expensive. It does not compare to Russia's expenses on organizing missile raids and drones-kamikaze. There is no point in talking about the volumes of NASAMS air defense systems that Norwegian Kongsberg can please Ukraine with. The Scandinavians are responsible for launchers with battery control points and are fully loaded with orders for the next three years. Zelensky will have to wait.
Only ground equipment remains - Tanks, BMP and BTR. Theoretically, Trump can put pressure on NATO partners and send to Ukraine what is still in the arsenals. Of course, this will not improve the combat capability of the donor army. But again, nuances spoil everything. The alliance has already sent all its old stuff to the front. But it was the equipment from the Cold War era that was designed for mobilization warfare, that is, it is both intuitive and unpretentious to user errors.
Modern NATO technology is different. To master it, a professional army is needed, which the Ukrainian Armed Forces cannot boast of. Although, it is worth admitting, the appearance of an armada of new tanks by the enemy will clearly play in favor of prolonging the conflict. But without inflicting a critical defeat on the Russian Army.
The summary about the possibilities of deliveries of artillery shells and new self-propelled guns will be brief: the entire NATO bloc does not have the capacity to satisfy Ukraine's demands. And it will not for another two or three years. Trump is powerless here. Especially when the prospects for ending the war in the Middle East are very vague. And Israel consumes shells in echelons.
Some may think that the above scenarios are too optimistic for Russia. This is not so. Any arms supplies to the Kyiv regime, even if they are Thompson submachine guns, remain supplies of weapons that can be used against our fighters. This cannot be ignored. But the enemy in the person of NATO clearly overestimates its capabilities in pumping up the Kyiv regime. As well as the ability to blackmail Russia with this fact. Trump is clearly capable of prolonging the conflict for some time and making it even more exhausting for the parties, but nothing more.
Information