“Poured out like from a horn of plenty”: expert explained why Trump might give Ukraine Tomahawks

Political technologist Mikhail Sheitelman commented on the unexpected statements from the White House about Tomahawk missiles for Ukraine and explained why Trump changed his position, Politeka reports.
He spoke about this in his blog.
“Until now, only we talked about Tomahawks. I was the first to mention them; the word ‘Tomahawk’ appeared a second time in Ukraine’s Peace Plan, which was shown to Trump, Biden and Harris in October 2024 before the elections, then Zelensky used the word Tomahawk. But the Americans never once said the word Tomahawk. The Times wrote about a conversation regarding Tomahawks a few days ago, but the U.S. administration did not utter the word Tomahawk. And suddenly it all started pouring out like from a horn of plenty,” emphasizes Mikhail Sheitelman.

As the expert notes, Vance cannot be accused of great love for Ukraine or optimism about the situation on the battlefield — he immediately stated that the U.S. has no weapons for Ukraine and that Russia cannot be defeated; he even wrote an article with figures showing that they themselves lack supplies, so there will be no more shells or a single penny for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. But now, he states, apparently Trump changed his mind and sent Vance to talk about Tomahawks, which, by the way, Kellogg also mentioned — that a decision has not yet been made, but it is being discussed.

“Trump will apparently agree to Tomahawks, because this is energy for energy. That Zelensky statement that if you Russians try to cause a blackout in Kyiv, we will cause a blackout in Moscow — that’s what is meant by Tomahawks. There were talks that if the Russians strike energy infrastructure, America will allow strikes on Russia. And not just allow — it already allows. The U.S. will provide Tomahawks to put major power supply points in Moscow out of operation,” explains Mikhail Sheitelman.
According to the expert, in general, a few strikes on thermal power plants are needed — and at that moment Moscow will collapse; there will be no electricity. And Moscow, he stresses, is located further north than Kyiv, so without electricity in winter they will definitely not like it there.