Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store https://www.etsy.com/shop/DanielDavisDeepDive?ref=seller-platform-mcnav Larry Johnson criticizes the Trump administration’s handling of weapons requests, saying under Biden requests were delayed then partially fulfilled; now the Trump team has raised the idea of supplying Tomahawk cruise missiles. The guest calls the Tomahawk proposal a sign of desperation and argues many officials (DoD/CIA/Trump advisers) are operating from false or delusional assessments of the battlefield. The administration and some sources describe the conflict as a “stalemate,” but the speaker strongly disputes that — claiming Russian forces are advancing steadily and faster than reported. Multiple on-the-ground Russian contacts reportedly contradict claims that the Russian economy or logistics are collapsing due to Ukrainian attacks. The Tomahawk raises unique risks: Russia has declared it a red line, threatening to destroy Tomahawks and their launchers and implying attacks on forces operating them. That could escalate into direct U.S.–Russia confrontation. Practical problems: Ukraine lacks the usual Tomahawk launch platforms (VLS on warships, submarine torpedo tubes, or ground launchers), so it’s unclear how Kyiv would actually fire them even if supplied. Even if NATO partners (e.g., UK) could fire Tomahawks, the system is aging, limited in stock, and sometimes requires U.S. technical support for targeting/programming. Using large numbers would deplete U.S. inventories. Putin and Russian officials frame Tomahawks as potentially nuclear-capable (or at least ambiguous), increasing Russian alarm and the political cost of such a transfer. Overall point: supplying Tomahawks would likely be symbolic and provocative rather than materially decisive — it risks escalation, strains limited munitions stockpiles, and reflects poor strategic judgment grounded in misreading the situation.