February 28, 2022 - 7:30am
Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has been a rude awakening for everyone in the West. But rather than facing up to brutal reality, too many of our politicians seem determined to grip the fantasy tight.
This instinct is, at least, better than the reluctance to impose meaningful sanctions on Russia in evidence in some parts. But the consequences, if the hawks had their way, could be at least as disastrous.
David Davis, who at one point was the front-runner for the Conservative leadership and might have been prime minister, has suggested enforcing a ‘no-fly zone’ over Ukraine.
Such language is familiar to Western audiences, used to waging one-sided campaigns in theatres like Syria. But the logic in this case is completely different.
Attempting to set up an NFZ would mean having RAF fighters run the gauntlet of the Russian army’s formidable air defence systems, which are apparently among the most advanced in the world.
The implications of that move are staggering. It never happened in all the decades of the Cold War. If we started to lose pilots, this would lead either to a humiliating retreat or further escalation. After decades of cuts and muddled strategic thinking, Britain would not win.
But he’s not the only Conservative MP apparently spoiling for a fight. Tobias Ellwood is demanding that NATO put troops on the ground. Simon Hoare, incredibly, suggests that “we can’t pick and choose” when we go to war — as if there are no significant differences between today’s Russia and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
For context, NATO’s four forward battlegroups in Eastern Europe are battalion-sized, meaning about a thousand troops each. Putin has 200,000 troops deployed in and around Ukraine. The Ukrainians have reportedly already shot down more aircraft than Germany has in total.
NATO countries in Europe have finally summoned the will to organise weapons shipments and kick Russia out of the SWIFT international payments system. That doesn’t mean they’re ready for boots on the ground.
Only slightly less surreal are suggestions from Alicia Kearns, another Tory MP and member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, to launch missiles at Russian forces from Poland and Romania.
What happens if the Russians shoot back? NATO’s obligation — which to be honest we have no reason to believe every member would honour — applies to self-defence.
How many countries would wriggle out of it on the pretext that we were the aggressor? What would it do for Trump-style scepticism of the alliance in the US if small countries, which had neglected their own defence for decades, started trying to drag America into a war it doesn’t want?
The hard truth is that neither our Armed Forces nor our industrial infrastructure, nor even our imaginations are ready for a conventional war with a major power. That desperately needs fixing, but it will be a long, expensive job.
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.
SubscribeGreat article and a sad true. Khan and so many other zealots are standing for the very same people that slaughtered the natives and plundering their riches. They stand for the same ideology that served to justify the rape of over 200,000 women in Bangladesh in 1971. Not to mention the roughly 1,000 honour killings reported every year.
Hypocrisy is one of the greatest evils.
How strange. My comment has been downvoted. Does that mean someone thinks hypocrisy is not a great evil?
“Hindu-supremacist regime of Narendra Modi”
“Modi— another exponent of religious nationalism who wants to turn India into a Hindu facsimile of Pakistan”
Reading unadulterated BS like this makes me wish Indian Hindus genuinely did treat muslims the way they treat minorities in Islamic nations.
In Pakistan (which means land of the “pure”, incidentally), Islam is the state religion by law, no non muslim can be president, blasphemy laws, raping and forcefully converting Hindu minor girls is legal and frequent.
Point out where Modi, other BJP leaders or BJP voters have suggested replicating the same?
What Modi’s India did have since 2014 is special religious laws for muslims, frequent stabbings or beheadings because someone insulted their prophet, regular instances of Hindu girls being tricked or forcibly converted / murdered.
And to highlight just how ridiculous it is – the muslims in current India voted en masse for the muslim league and partition. They voted for Pakistan and the butchering of the “impure”. But the ones remaining in India were stuck in states where muslims were a minority. And today they demand special treatment for themselves.
What a fine bunch of specimens of humanity.
I only agree to the extent that India is nowhere near as bad as Pakistan. But minorities there, including Muslims, often ARE viciously mistreated and find state officials and the police uninterested or hostile. And you must be wilfully naive at best if you ignore Modi’s role in the 2002 anti Muslim pogroms in Gujarat
So, an Indian hates the leader of Pakistan. Well I never.
I think you will find most Indians really like the leaders of Pakistan. Whether it was launching a stupid war in 65, losing the entire eastern half by trying to violently suppress them, sending Balochistan and the Afghan borders down the same path, or generally fu**ing up the country by encouraging Islamisation and blind hatred of India rather than developing the economy…..
And Imran Bhai has continued that noble tradition. Indians love what he has done in just a few years!
If an Indian hadn’t written this, would you have engaged with the substance of the article? Also, the Indian left loves Imran Khan far more than Modi. They operate on the same simplistic level as you.
The link “to three million Bengalis — a people denigrated by Pakistani officials as “black monkeys” — in 1971.” seems not to work.
I take it that the author is not a fan? (I hope Unherd will publish a rebuttal This is an extremely one sided piece)
Agree. It’s dire – a travesty. And let’s see the rebuttal from a Pakistani, not another Indian.
Why, specifically, is it a travesty?
On Unherd, I have read biased pieces (from both sides of issues) and neutral pieces. There are all sorts here.