So, in short, what this means:1. By analogy with previous cases, U.S. approval for a certain type of weapon opens the door to European analogues (in this specific case, this could theoretically mean TAURUS missiles).2. The Russians are absolutely right that Tomahawks are unlikely to change the course of the war on the battlefield. But Tomahawks that can get past Russian air defenses create the threat that Ukraine could, at least partially, halt Russia’s oil exports.Over the past month Ukraine struck the ports of Ust-Luga and Primorsk, as well as pumping stations. That looked like a demonstration that the Americans could lift the ban on strikes on those targets (emphasis — they have not lifted it, but they could).3. Ukraine would of course be taking a great risk, because this would lead to massive strikes on the export infrastructure of the Greater Odesa ports.4. Washington appears to believe that the mere fear of Tomahawk supplies may work on its own. After all, Tomahawks are not only — and not so much — about Ukraine as they are a warning: try anything militarily against NATO countries and you risk the destruction of all oil export infrastructure. And, I repeat, the Russians know they can do nothing to stop that.5. I remain of the view that Russia is not currently able to start a war with NATO. They are not prepared for that, which is indirectly shown by the consistency of Putin’s statements about Trump (at Valdai he mentioned the U.S. president seven times).6. For now, the Tomahawk story is part of a U.S. hybrid war against Russia aimed at forcing them to negotiate.7. Unfortunately, the Russians will try to play a game: “we are not attacking NATO, and you (the Americans) for now are allowing us (the Russians) to fight in Ukraine.” Therefore the formula “negotiations after a ceasefire” remains Ukraine's main goal.SourceAbout the author. Vadym Denysenko, political scientist.The editorial team does not always share the opinions expressed by blog or column authors.