Main Edition
US
FR
September 16, 2024 - 7:00am
When it comes to allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russia with US and British missiles, sense appears — for the moment at least — to have prevailed in Washington, and London has fallen into line. Though senior UK politicians have encouraged Prime Minister Keir Starmer to go against the American line and permit the use of these missiles, we should all hope that his current restraint continues. For while such strikes would help to slow down Russian advances, they would not lead to Ukrainian “victory”, and they would be likely to cause some form of Russian retaliation against Britain — with no certainty that the US would then come to Britain’s aid. In fact, there is no evidence from their statements or actions that the interests of Britain and British citizens have any place at all in the thinking of UK politicians who urge escalation in Ukraine.
Until now, Vladimir Putin has mostly limited himself to bluster in response to Western military aid, training and intelligence for Ukraine. On this issue, however, the Russian President’s latest statements mean that it would be extremely difficult for him not to react. For he has long been subjected to intense — though mostly private — criticism from Kremlin hardliners, who have argued, not without reason, that he has so far mobilised only a fraction of Russia’s available manpower and resources for the war in Ukraine. More than that, he is judged to have allowed the West to repeatedly violate Moscow’s “red lines”.
Russia is not remotely likely to respond with a nuclear strike on Ukraine, let alone the West — though a nuclear test is a possibility. Moves towards the use of even tactical nuclear weapons would be Russia’s very last resort. Instead, the danger is that strikes into Russia by Western missiles would lead to more limited retaliation, in turn provoking a cycle of mutual escalation ending in full-scale war.
Should strikes into Russia by Storm Shadows and ATACMs take place, Moscow has a range of possible responses. These would most likely be directed in the first instance against Britain, not America, so as to send a strong signal without necessarily leading to US retaliation. One would be to shoot down British military aircraft operating close to Russian airspace in the Baltic, the Black Sea or the Arctic. Even more dangerously, Russia might seek to destroy British intelligence satellites helping Ukraine with targeting.
Perhaps more likely as an initial step would be a radical escalation of sabotage operations in Europe, justified in Moscow’s view by the destruction of Nord Stream 2. These could, for example, include attacks on British energy infrastructure in the North Sea. Some sabotage has already occurred, but so far it has been minor, deniable, and intended to deter rather than do serious damage. Nobody has yet been killed, and no significant piece of infrastructure has been destroyed. That would change if Ukraine strikes deep into Russia with Western missiles.
Given Russia’s growing closeness to Iran, the Kremlin could provide Hezbollah and the Houthis with both missiles and the satellite technology to launch much more effective strikes on Israel and Western shipping. Putin hinted at this in June, when he said that “if someone thinks it is possible to supply such weapons to a war zone in order to strike at our territory, then why do we not have the right to supply our weapons of the same class to those regions of the world where there will be strikes on sensitive facilities of those countries that are doing this to Russia?”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI reckon within 10 days the Shadows or ATCAMs will have been used to hit Russian air fields and push the glide bomb squadrons further away from Ukraine border. I suspect the limitation placed will be these sort of specific military targets.
The security assessment will have included the sort of retaliation suggestions Author suggests. Putin won’t escalate into Space. He has far more to lose including any support from China. He knows the West can hit him much harder in multiple ways if he escalates via other means too.
We put too much emphasis on Putin sabre rattling. Showing weakness is provocation in itself. The Article exactly what he wants the Western conclusion to be.
Now Author is correct a messy 38th parallel type armistice inevitable. The strategic question is where that is placed and it’s specific locations are crucial.
So you don’t think Putin is going to annexe Estonia or attack Poland?
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/110496.htm
No he won’t.
So how dangerous is Putin to the security of the West?
He is another Hitler who must be stopped, and he is also just sabre-rattling….
Your chosen link says ‘Article 5 :-
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.’
Remind me where the Donbas is in relation to the North Atlantic.
Your question was specifically about annexing members of NATO. The rights and wrongs of supporting Ukraine are a separate consideration.
Remind me where Donald Trump is in relation to the US Presidency.
Next
Right, so the West has a Big problem.
Steven stop asking sensible questions. You’re getting in the way of The Narrative.
Or Serbia…or any other region in which NATO has taken “an interest” since the end of the Cold War?
At this point, anyone claiming that “X” is another Hitler just proved themselves uninformed echo chambers.
Note that Article 5 only requires a NATO member to take “such action as it deems necessary”. This may include armed force, but it does not oblige a member to use armed force.
A strongly worded démarche might be all that a member “deems necessary.”
And that would be the end of NATO.
NATO’s raison d’etre ended when the USSR folded its tents, went home…and then collapsed.
Since then it was looking for a purpose eg War on Terror, nasty Serbia, nasty Libya…none of which involved the North Atlantic area.
The purpose of NATO was to keep Russia down. That purpose will exist for at least the next century.
NATO has already ended. It’s just the United States military. Whatever the US wants, NATO does. Whatever the US doesn’t want, NATO doesn’t do.
Poland he will continue to try and undermine indirectly, but had West not helped Ukraine, and Ukraine itself not fought back, then likes of Estonia would have been next for sure. You must have heard Putin’s rambles about the Russian Empire and how that indicates he doesn’t see many of these neighbours as legit. Autocrats cannot allow Countries to thrive on their border.
To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail, eh?
Have you been to Russia? Do you know any Russians? If you did you might understand that, even in the unlikely event you can remove Putin, it won’t affect their absolute determination to hold onto Crimea. Read some history.
All Starmer’s willy waving is going to do is prolong the war and damage British interests. You guys have learnt nothing at all from the foreign policy fiascos of the Blair government. We are not the World Police.
If that is indeed so, the need to inflict massive damage on Russia (both militarily and economically) is increased.
How do you propose doing this, and for how long, without escalating the situation more drastically and with still none of the results you want?
Hopefully as long as it takes. It won’t escalate because that delivers an even worse outcome for Putin. He’s trying to frighten you. He senses some weakness in resolve and desperate to play on it. Weakness is a provocation. Be careful what you provoke.
It won’t escalate
It doesn’t need to in any conventional military sense.
Do you think Putin hasn’t noticed that any number of men of military age can simply walk into this country without identifying themselves? How many of his proxies are already here and all over Europe? And how many more will come when you’ve provoked him into a closer alliance with Iran and its terrorist militias?
Do you think he isn’t capable of electronic and attacks that will disable essential infrastructure leading to injury and death on a significant scale?
You’re living in the past and your thinking is muddled.. War doesn’t work the way you think it does any more. You can’t have a credible defence policy and the open borders you’re so keen on at one and the same time.
You have a point. If it were up to me, I would expel everyone originally from Russia or an allied nation from Britain.
Now removing all the Oligarch money from London does have some attraction. But some of that of course anti-Putin and might just seed some of his eventual demise.
Long been noticeable how much of an apologist you are for Putin. I don’t suppose you’ve some money tied up in Russia by any chance?
I assume you are aware that the FBS helps the people smugglers and sees the migration challenge as a way of undermining the West. And yet you think somehow he’d stop if we appeased.
I definitely suspect there is something more to your apologism. Unherd introduced the ‘robot’ checks in part because v aware how the FBS and MSS sets up auto-accounts to feed bile into western discourse, but it couldn’t remove the useful idiots of course.
You didn’t actually address the “how”.
How do you propose doing this
He isn’t going to do anything. Someone else will have to. That’s what warmongering is all about.
1) Current tactics, namely proxy war and sanctions. 2) As long as it takes. 3) If it escalates, so be it.
proxy war and sanctions.
Both of them not working so far. So why would they further down the line?
That’s the very definition of madness, keep doing the same things that have failed all along and expect different results. With the little nuclear kicker at the end. Einstein would be proud.
Whilst Putin getting removed would be nice that’s for the Russians. The issue with Shadows/ATCAMs is to reduce the almost daily murder of civilians by glide bombs by forcing the Russian air-force into a tactical retreat.
As regards the broader issue, the fact you are naive as to what happens if Putin wins not at all a surprise.
Whilst Putin getting removed would be nice that’s for the Russians.
It won’t make the slightest difference for the average Russian. Clearly you haven’t been there and know little or nothing about the country and its people.
what happens if Putin wins
Putin can’t win. Neither can the Ukrainians. Both sides will have to compromise. How many young people have to die to satisfy you? This war could have been ended two years ago but for the willy waving of Boris and all the other Blairite numpties who can’t resist playing armchair generals.
I take on board everything the author says, but it would be good to see all of Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure on fire.
Biden will not want oil prices to rise with an election in a few weeks.
I didn’t say it was likely, I just said it would be good to see. As a consolation prize, I’ll take seeing the Kremlin on fire.
Martin, why does being wrong about everything cause you no shame, its remarkable
I’m sorry. I thought the UnHerd comments were somewhere where people could express opinions. You might not like my opinion, but that doesn’t make it objectively “wrong”.
You’re free to express your opinions. They just happen to be reactionary, ignorant and destructive.
I think you approach the question from a different perspective than me. I think Russia is a “forever enemy”, and is going to need to be dealt with at some point. My views proceed from that starting point.
You really do need to show some evidence why he is “wrong” rather than just claim it.
As long as this conflict continues, it would seem rather unwise to pronounce so certainly on the final score and who’s “right” and “wrong”.
Have all your predictions and statements on this conflict been correct ? You’d be in a minority of one …
He has been wrong about Russia and the Ukraine from the start
He spent all last summer telling us the Ukrainians were winning great victories over the Russians, he probably still believes it
And he’s wrong now, for some reason he wants endless war with the Russians
Come on. Answer the question. Have you been 100% right ? Has anyone ?
No-one is ever right about everything. But Martin is wrong about everything.
I am certainly wrong about some things. I supported Trump in 2016. Boy, was that ever “wrong”.
Easy then. We all become anti-Martins and be right all the time.
You do realise that if “no one is every right about everything” (and I agree), then it’s equally certain that “no one is ever wrong about everything”.
After all, one day, Martin will trip up and accidentally say something you agree with. The only way for him not to do so is for him to perfectly know the future and deliberately choose the wrong option every single time. But then he’d be perfectly competent – and just winding you up …
No it wouldn’t. God, the bloodlust on here is scary.
It is about time someone put the Russians “back in their box”. I’d dislike them a lot less if they didn’t go about invading other countries with no reason.
It isn’t about ‘liking’ or not liking people. It’s about conducting a foreign policy that’s in the national interest, not simply one that appeals to your moral vanity. You’re not going to succeed in turning Russians into sandal-wearing, tofu munching pacifists by bombing them any more than you succeeded in turning Iraqi sunnis and Afghan tribesmen into prissy Islington feminists by shooting at them. It was a delusion then and it’s a delusion now.
I recognise that we can’t change the fundamental nature of Russia and its people. That is why I want to cripple them both militarily and economically.
Interesting. So I presume you dislike the countries that invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Serbia, Syria, Granada, Panama, etc. etc. “with no reason”?
In some of those cases at least, there was a reason (and in most of those cases, the countries doing the “invading” did not want to occupy the country in question long term).
Let’s see…
Germany – still there
Japan – still there
Italy – still there
Iraq – asked to leave but still there
Syria – occupying illegally, still there
Kosovo – still there
Afghanistan – would still be there if they hadn’t lost the war
…
Please explain how you put a country with 3,000 nuclear warheads aimed at you ‘back in its box’. You really are deluded.
I blame video games. Or maybe bondage p0rn.
Spoken like a true German Nazi
This is nonsense.
As far as Putin is concerned, four entire Ukrainian oblasts are already part of Russia (he got that changed by Russian law) (and even though large parts are still held by Ukraine). And the Western missiles are already being used there. So there is then no difference to him whether they land in his new provinces in Ukraine or what the rest of us call Russia.
The author is also wrong to claim that neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians can win this war. If we do nothing, the Ukrainians will lose and be a Russian colony. If we support them fully, they could win. Both possible outcomes. But most likely some settlement around where things are now.
Let the Ukrainians do whatever they need to do to defend and protect their country. Both now and in the future. It’s beyond any possible doubt now that they cannot trust the Russians for another 20 years – if ever.
If Putin wants to escalate, he’ll do it anyway. He’s bottled the last 20 or 30 red lines. He knows he’ll lose.
By the established rules of international law, various NATO countries crossed the line from neutral to belligerent on day one of the war. For whatever reason, Russia chose not to make an issue of it.
All the so-called “red lines” the West has crossed were lines drawn by the West, not by Russia.
Now Russia has drawn a red line.
Last times Russia drew a red line and the West crossed it, Russia’s reaction was swift and decisive – when the West regime-changed Yanukovich in 2014 and NATO had wet dreams about winning Sebastopol as a NATO naval base; and when a NATO-trained Ukraine got ready to launch an all-out assault on the Donbass in early 2022.
Quite so…
Sir Keir could no more leave the ‘special relationship’ than the Moon could leave the orbit of the Earth.
One wonders what Biden thought of this left-wing person with a noble title. Wasn’t Rashy Sanook prime minister of this remote rain-swept financial black hole with a Trump golf course attached?
The British public are regaled almost daily with accounts from newspapers, especially in the online versions, of Russian bombers being intercepted flying towards the UK. Shades of the Battle of Britain. The same news outlets field clickbait headlines about ‘fears exploding’ of WW3. Do fears ‘explode’?
Only last week a newspaper reported excitedly that the Royal Navy had been ‘scrambled’ to shadow a Russian submarine traversing the English Channel. Did the sailors finish their game of bowls?
The recent reports about the parlous state of the Royal Navy cannot be correct if the Senior Service can still send ships to sea. Do ships ‘scramble’? Or is that the eggs in the galley?
I was with this article right up to the conclusion, at which point I diverge from the reasoning.
The Kursk incursion has changed the terms for the endgame of this war. Russia will now not stop until they have pushed Ukraine back out of range of its border. This effectively means a demilitarisation of everything east of the Dnieper River.
Short of this, Moscow no longer has ‘terms’. The Kursk incursion ended that possibility. Western Ukraine will be reduced to a rump state. The Donbas will remain in the Russian Federation and the oblasts in between (Sumy, Dnipropetrovsk, Poltava…) will be an occupied, demilitarised zone with in indeterminate future, for many years and decades to come.
The first intelligent comment in this thread. Well done. Do none of these people realise that Russia has long range bombing capacity that it hasn’t used at all in this war. The Ukrainians can’t win. Everyone knows this and yet we’re determined to force the Russians to wipe them all out and exhaust itself in the process. The cynicism is breathtaking.
I have often asked myself this question. Is there a method to this? As in, is the goal to ‘exhaust’ Russia as you suggest?
Perhaps so. But if that is the goal, there is little evidence – at least to me – that it is working. On the contrary, the Russians are energised as never before. They have remilitarised their economy and, together with their Asian allies are in a position to supply Asia, Africa and dissident South America with weapons up and down the Silk Road.
Politically, I see no evidence of a lack of solidarity around the current foreign policy – except insomuch as hardliners are pressuring Putin to go even harder and faster.
Perhaps this energy will burn out, I don’t know. But if so, it’s a game of 3D chess that is too many moves deep for me!
Well, if that is true, it remains incumbent on the West to ensure that Russian body-bags keep getting filled with Russian soldiers.
Lord, forgive him. He knows not what he types.
Oh, I definitely know what I type….
It sounds like you and a lot of others on this quorum want Russia to win. Anyone actively hoping for such an outcome is a disgusting excuse of a human.
You put them in a position that suits you so you can then accuse them of being “a disgusting excuse of a human”. They haven’t said they want Russia to win. What it “sounds like” to you is irrelevant.
As stated in this story “Kremlin hardliners, who have argued, not without reason, that he has so far mobilised only a fraction of Russia’s available manpower and resources for the war in Ukraine.” It’s highly unlikely Ukraine can win. The danger for Ukraine is your belief in an outcome that you want, completely removed from the reality, before you toddle off to bed.
You make an excellent point, which I haven’t seen made before. This one may run and run…
Agreed. Mearsheimer predicted the broken rump state result quite a while ago. A “cold peace” I believe is the term he used, complete with sporadic violations of the DMZ by either side. Russia gets the sizable buffer that they were looking for. What of Ukraine? Will their reduced state be economically viable or forced to live on Western handouts? The never-ending rhetoric and cheerleading about ‘giving Ukraine whatever they need to win” is just going to make the inevitable sad ending even sadder. Ukraine can stop the war but they can’t win it in the “Putin had to pack up and go home” sense.
I’m not a Putin apologist. IMO the Ukrainians deserve a better fate and I hope my gloomy prediction is wrong but if not I suspect that in the post-debacle media mountain of “What went wrong” we won’t likely see too many comments admitting that when push came to invade, the much lauded Western principle of Rules Based Order was unenforceable and meant absolutely nothing to Putin.
“….the Ukrainians deserve a better fate….” The Ukrainians realise that a fate of being raped, tortured and murdered by Russians is not “better”.
Russia obviously didn’t want to “occupy and subjugate” the whole of the Ukraine. It didn’t assemble a force large enough to do so…basic military doctrine. Any statement to the contrary is pure propaganda by the West, and rather surprisingly repeated in this article.
The article is right that British consent to the use of Storm Shadow to “strike deep into Russia” will provoke retaliation but wrong that Russia is “not remotely likely” to respond with a nuclear strike on Ukraine. We simply do not know, because we don’t know the internal politics of the Russian government. Putin is cautious, others may not be. Even so, as the article points out, the USA will not risk a nuclear war for the sake of any country but the USA.
The main point where the article is right is in stating that there is no evidence that British politicians have the interests of Britain and the British people in their thinking when they urge consent to the use of Storm Shadow.
It was ever thus; Britain should lead by example at the cost of its people. It is notable that no British ruling politician leads by example and goes to fight themselves.
Putin forces went straight for Kyiv to decapitate the Govt and replace with puppets. They’d have left significant armed force stationed in Ukraine had they succeeded. Look at a map. Kyiv is not in the Donbas or Crimea.
Russia’s tactical nukes need to be shifted much closer to Ukrainian border before they can be used. Thus they’d be destroyed before deployed. Majority of military experts clear on this before we even get to quiet briefing US/NATO given Putin what would happen if he used them. Xi almost certainly told Putin that would be a step too far too. The threat is entirely designed to influence western media and folks like yourself.
All Polls in UK show v strong support for Ukraine. I think you’d find similar for use of the Storm Shadows so long as targeting Russian military or their supplies even if that’s some way inside Russia. Lobbing one into Red Square, perhaps not.
Absolutely. He’s a liar (or just stupid). Putin’s original plan was to capture Kiev and fully occupy/subjugate Ukraine. How many times does Putin have to write and say that Ukraine “isn’t a real country” and “is part of Russia” before these fools will listen ?
And Putin’s original plan was hardly “cautious” !!! Quite the reverse.
Putin never said Ukraine isn’t a “real country” – what he said was that the Soviet-era borders of Ukraine were artificial; not only that, but that Lenin and Stalin deliberately included large swathes of lands inhabited by ethic Russians in order to ensure there was no ethnic Ukrainian majority in Ukraine and would guarantee strife in Ukraine, which in turn would justify intervention by Moscow.
He also did not say that Ukraine is part of Russia. What he did say is that Ukrainians and Russians (as well as Belorussians) are fraternal peoples. This is rejected by Ukrainian social nationalists (their term) who hold that Ukrainians are Scythian or Nordic/Germanic, not Slavs – they despise Slavs (Russians, Poles, etc.).
Always good to see some accuracy and truth in comments instead of mere heated opinion.
“Putin never said Ukraine isn’t a “real country””
Yes, he did.
Oh no he didn’t. Link please.
Go listen to his Tucker Carlson interview.
Ukrainian statehood is constantly portrayed as artificial in Russian media and public discourse and thus nitpicking about individual statements is simply useless. The entire argument hinges on precisely those borders, which is also just ignorant, because the entire concept of nation-states only really came to be around the 19th/20th century. There weren’t many places in the entire world where one could draw clear-cut borders based on ethnicity, and yet, Russian government media still claim that Ukraine doesn’t exist because of this. If anything, the full-scale invasion has shown that this “artificial” country can very much come together to defend itself.
I think it is also very telling that you use the term “Belorussians” instead of Belarusians, which implies that they are just another kind of Russian people.
Also your entire point about “social nationalists” (I assume you are referring to the SNPU, later renamed to Svoboda) is simply misleading. Svoboda holds one seat in parliament, with 24 more being held by the nationalist but rather moderate Batkivshchyna. There are genuine nationalists in Ukraine, and there neo-nazis as well, but they neither represent the majority of the people, nor is this particularly shocking compared to other European countries. I would kindly encourage you to have a good look at the far-right AfD in Germany and their election results, as well as EKRE in Estonia, just to name two examples. For some reason the Russians don’t really complain about that, do they?
The vast majority of Ukrainians I have to talked to consider Ukraine to be a political state in the modern sense, as in being defined by common values, and not ethnicity. “Fraternal peoples” also don’t invade their neighbours, bomb their cities and deport their children. Frankly, no one needs brothers and sisters like that.
All Polls in UK show v strong support for Ukraine.
Which simply illustrates the extent to which the mass of the population has been brainwashed.
To “decapitate” would merely have required heavy bombing of Kiev, no troops involved.
As for Russia’s tactical nukes being “destroyed before deployed”, I very much doubt it and certainly don’t want to bet my life, or the UK on it.
The USA will not risk the destruction or heavy damage to the USA for anything other than the USA. As de Gaulle said, no US President will risk New York for the sake of Lyons…the same applies to Kiev, London, Paris and Berlin…as the Germans are starting to realise.
Do the polls ask if Britain should go to war with Russia to help Ukraine? Let me guess…
You lack some basic appreciation that strategic bombing rarely accomplishes all it wants. But that aside you need to ask yourself why then did Putin send major armoured Divisions towards Kyiv?
As regards US – there is clear consensus on needing to push back on the Autocrats in the 4 main theatres – Ukraine, Middle East, Korea and S China sea. Even Trump and Johnson changed their tune. Trump will say anything he thinks will win him the election but once in WH he won’t pull back.
And why do we need to go to war with Russia? All we need to do is give Ukraine the tools to properly defend itself.
Weakness a provocation MC. Don’t let yourself be so rattled.
If Russia didn’t want to occupy and subjugate the whole of Ukraine why did they immediately try to take the capital and murder its president? You have a very short memory.
My memory is fine, thanks. See my response as to decapitation.
Appeasement always sounds so reasonable and safe. Unfortunately, taking this line is sheer madness when in the context of an autocratic aggressor who is not reasonable and is intrinsically dangerous.
‘Intrinsically dangerous’?
So why does Lammy say Putin is just grandstanding?
Lammy is a buffoon. Putin would have him for breakfast.
The discussion is not about whether the UK should appease Russia, but whether the UK should go to war against Russia.
So far the UK has helped arm Ukraine in its self-defense. Using UK weapons to attack targets in Russia seems an act of aggression, not of appeasement, and as this article points out, brings the UK into the war as a participant.
But of course Russia bombing maternity hospitals is entirely ok?
I disagree with almost every word of this article. We are already at war with Russia, but are allowing Ukrainians to do the dying on our behalf. The least we can do is provide them with all the weapons and equipment they need.
If Putin does not lose this war (and be unseated and presumably killed), he will continue his acts of aggression against his neighbours. Poland and the Baltic states understand this all to clearly and say it loudly and often.
To not respond to the bully Putin with aggression is to invite more aggression from him. It is therefore stupid and self-defeating, not to mention morally reprehensible to prevent Ukraine from using all the force they need.
Ah…morality! Obviously something Western foreign policy is based on…no friendship or alliances with repressive regimes.. oh…hang on…lol…
Besides the point. They are embroiled in it now, chances for negotiations have been and gone, America and Britain have said they will help them, so now we have to help them. You can’t abandon a war part way through or flip flop on kit and strategy.
Hopefully the UK will crack the f*ck on now and send them what they need, including long range missiles. If there is a danger of escalation as long as we are ready for it they should be sending everything they can at this point, as fast as possible to get this pushed back in Ukraines favour. They have good momentum at the moment, we need to stop holding back.
I agree, and the west is playing a stupid game, neither giving Ukraine sufficient support to win nor accepting the alternative of defeat for Ukraine.
this half in half out support simply prolongs the agony. And confirms Putins view that the west is weak and flabby and he can push us around with no real consequences.
Can you define what Ukraine ‘winning’ looks like?
Russian troops out of Ukraine. Russia destroyed, both militarily and economically.
So would you support declaring war on Russia and sending troops to fight and die alongside Ukrainian soldiers?
Absolutely correct! My thoughts entirely!
Excellent article. Except for the very last months of WW2, the huge permanent bombing of Germany hasn’t succeeded in seriously reducing German output and, always during WW2, the draedful destruction of the USSR’s industry during the first months of Barbarossa have not impeded Stalin to swiftly move all his strategic plants way East.
Some lonely Western missiles wouldn’t change anything on the ground but could trigger dangerous counter-threat from Putin.
Western missiles could bring down the Kerch Bridge, and set fire to some Russian oil facilities. That at least would be a good start.
So many Russian bots and trolls here today.
Some European “leaders” are willing to risk Armageddon because if the war ends in a pause/truce/whatever their positions (and that of Zelenskyy) are untenable after all their crazy rhetoric.