Daniel Davis Deep Dive Merch: Etsy store https://www.etsy.com/shop/DanielDavisDeepDive?ref=seller-platform-mcnav President Trump said he’s “seriously considering” giving or allowing Tomahawk cruise missiles to be used by Ukraine if Russia won’t accept a negotiated settlement. A guest (Col. Jacques Bo) responds that: Tomahawks can’t simply be handed over (they require U.S. launch platforms), the threat is tactically dubious, likely to escalate, and reflects Trump’s transactional, non-strategic approach. Col. Bo argues Russia’s aims are existential (protecting ethnic Russians, preventing NATO on Ukrainian soil), so threats like this won’t change Moscow’s calculus and may make the situation more dangerous. Key points Trump publicly floated supplying/allowing Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine as leverage if Putin won’t agree to favorable terms. Practical constraint: Tomahawks normally require U.S. launch platforms (ships/submarines/aircraft), so they can’t just be “given” to Ukraine; Russia says U.S. participation would be necessary. Col. Jacques Bo warns the idea is highly escalatory and that the Pentagon would understand the risks; the threat could provoke a stronger Russian response. Bo characterizes Trump as transactional and tactical (a dealmaker), not a long-range strategist — using leverage and threats rather than mediation techniques that bring parties together gradually. Russia’s stated motives are framed as existential: protecting Russians in Ukraine and preventing NATO deployments (including potential nuclear threats) on Ukraine’s soil — territory is a means to that end, not the sole objective. Introducing Tomahawks openly would remove ambiguity about U.S. involvement and likely force Russia to escalate politically and militarily. One-line takeaway The Tomahawk suggestion is politically dramatic but practically limited and dangerous — it risks escalation without a clear path to the negotiated outcome Trump aims to force.