The Long-Range Salvo of Information War: What the WSJ “Missile Story” Really Signaled
A Controlled Leak, Not a Journalistic Error
In late October, The Wall Street Journal - once considered one of America’s most authoritative business publications - reported that the Trump administration had lifted restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles. The claim triggered immediate skepticism from parts of the academic and expert community. In one of my lectures, I called it “a long-range salvo in the information war.” The intuition of political scientists proved accurate: only hours later, Donald Trump personally dismissed the article as a fake.
Such stories are rarely spontaneous acts of journalism. The Wall Street Journal, still eager to preserve at least the illusion of professional credibility, is unlikely to publish a fabrication from thin air. The piece was almost certainly based on some level of insider information - either as a managed leak or as the reflection of internal struggles among factions within the U.S. political elite.
Scenario One: Simulating Escalation
The simplest interpretation is that Washington wanted to simulate an escalation - to “test” Moscow’s reaction. Of course, U.S. officials could easily anticipate how the Kremlin would respond, but world politics thrives on constant pressure-testing. Leaders probe each other’s limits because, in geopolitics, one rule never fails: the weak get hit first.
Beyond gauging Moscow’s reaction, stories like this also serve a domestic function. They act as a safety valve, demonstrating to the most aggressive anti-Russian hawks that their voices are being heard and that more radical options remain on the table. For foreign partners, such articles serve as morale boosters - symbolic proof that Washington retains leverage and resolve.
Kremlin Response: A Real Message to a Fake Story
Interestingly, the Kremlin chose to respond to the Wall Street Journal article even after Trump had debunked it. Speaking to reporters, President Vladimir Putin warned of a “stunning” response to any such decision. Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov clarified that this warning referred to long-range strikes on Russian territory in general - not only the use of Tomahawk missiles.
This rhetoric coincided with pre-planned strategic nuclear exercises. The result was predictable: Western media began learning a new word - Burevestnik. Commentators scrambled to decipher what this nuclear-powered missile represented and whether Trump grasped the subtext of Moscow’s message.
The exchange was effectively symmetrical. Washington launched an informational projectile; Moscow replied with a tangible demonstration. The Kremlin’s move carried more weight - because it countered a rumor with an actual event.
Scenario Two: An Attempt to Tie Trump’s Hands
A second, though less likely, explanation is that one of the U.S. elite factions attempted to constrain Trump’s policy options on Ukraine. Negotiation theory textbooks often describe this tactic - forcing an opponent to commit publicly to certain principles in hopes that psychological consistency will guide their future behavior.
But what works in consumer psychology doesn’t scale to nuclear diplomacy. Expecting a tactic that sells vacuum cleaners to work in arms-control negotiations is, at best, naïve.
A historical parallel illustrates the point: when Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, some political observers interpreted it as a preemptive attempt to make him act as a pacifist. Those hopes proved misplaced. Likewise, Trump’s swift rejection of the WSJ story suggested irritation - recognition of an unskilled attempt to manipulate him.
Political Machinery and Self-Correction
Paradoxically, Trump managed to turn the incident to his advantage. Political machines have no collective mind, but they evolve mechanisms that convert even local rebellions into systemic gain. Decades or centuries of calibration make such systems resilient.
Some analysts have long argued that decisive action on the Ukrainian front is against Trump’s own interests. His true geopolitical rival is China, and his strategic dream is to weaken the Moscow-Beijing axis - or at least introduce friction into it. That goal demands avoiding further collapse in U.S. - Russian relations.
At the same time, Trump cannot fully withdraw from the Ukrainian issue - if only because the European Union remains a major source of financial resources for the U.S. economy. His optimal strategy, therefore, lies in the simulation of vigorous diplomatic and military activity: controlled escalation, followed by denial.
The Cycle as Strategy
These alternating cycles of “leak and refutation” serve multiple purposes:
× They test foreign reactions.
× They pacify internal factions.
× They project strength without commitment.
In short, the Wall Street Journal episode was not a journalistic error but a functional maneuver in a broader geopolitical game. Both Washington and Moscow fired symbolic shots - but only one side, the Kremlin, backed its words with a real missile.