What Ukraine really needs from Europe is missiles that can hit Moscow

7 comments

1. As Ukraine’s European allies debate their contribution to a potential settlement of [the war](https://inews.co.uk/topic/russia-ukraine-war?srsltid=AfmBOorwgpreSlshIAZCYQv9COZHUOV5r0DNcl2__xChxGRSEo0vMgKn&ico=in-line_link), it’s a good moment to learn from past mistakes. 

   Russia’s attack on Ukraine and capture of [Crimea](https://inews.co.uk/topic/crimea?srsltid=AfmBOoqR-0QMjEhGtUWifPTMyAYEAZoRzsgdJxXYjI_0lXKOIM2_mp2F&ico=in-line_link) in 2014 showed the perils of a security vacuum. Afterwards, Ukraine relied on Russian goodwill and an assortment of bilateral and multilateral agreements from allies that offered little deterrence against future aggression. Moscow maintained its tradition that only deals backed by hard power or serving its interest are worth respecting – and duly escalated to a full-scale invasion in 2022.  

   The lesson is clear. Only a deal backed by hard power from the Ukrainian side would have a chance to survive and deliver a stable settlement. 

   Before considering the substance of a realistic security framework it is helpful to clarify some terminology. Though Ukraine and its partners use the word “guarantees” to describe their future security relations, they are actually discussing commitments. 

   True security guarantees are based on expectations that other countries would fight for you in case of need. Proper mutual defence clauses are the basis of [Nato ](https://inews.co.uk/topic/nato?srsltid=AfmBOoqwLaRyTEhH0sXbHWF9mTM4ywV4vE3Z7YJupVUCtPyLXUiwgaTt&ico=in-line_link)and bilateral agreements between the US and its Asian partners, Japan and South Korea. Promises to supply weaponry and ammunition, provide intelligence data and training, fund a military-industrial complex, or even station troops in a country as observers – are valuable security commitments that fall short of guarantees. 

   Ukraine will continue to press for eventual Nato membership, even though the alliance shows no readiness to grant Kyiv admission and risk war with nuclear-armed Russia. But the promise of an open door policy to Nato has value even if it will not realistically be implemented in the short term. 

   First, this is a sign of real sovereignty that Russia would like to deny within a conflict settlement – just as non-aligned Finland valued the option to join Nato in case of need. Second, the option to join Nato, which Kyiv raises time and time again, is a form of leverage over Western partners. This is our signal that our security should be properly aided – ideally within Nato – or otherwise through aid in the form of weaponry, data, training and money.

2. Yess because this has really worked for the germans in ww2, bombing London.

3. European partners should be licensing the production of Flamingo missiles, with every third or fourth missile produced being a payment to Ukraine or something like that as a kickback. Especially if Flamingo could be adapted to support modular seeker replacements it would be a great strike weapon to incorporate terrain-following radar and optical recognition. Throw in active and passive countermeasures and a faster engine too.

4. Ukraine need quantity. They need as many weapons as possible to push Russia out of their land. An odd long range missiles strike is absolutely worthless. They need to be flooded with weapons that can both hit behind enemy lines a and hit right along the front. Sanctions are not helping. Strongly worded statements are not helping, meetings are not helping.

5. What is the range of the flamingo?

6. And boots on the ground. If North Korea can send troops so do we.

7. Translation: What Ukraine really needs is to bait Europe to actively become a combatant in the war against Russia

Comments are closed.