Following Foreign Secretary David Cameron’s remarks that Ukraine is free to use British-supplied weapons to launch strikes within Russia, the Kremlin has replied with usual theater.
This theater involved both diplomatic and nuclear elements. Moscow declared it will be undertaking tactical nuclear weapons drills soon to remind the world that it possesses such weapons, and the British ambassador was called to the Russian foreign ministry on Monday to warn of retribution. The US, which has continuously forbidden Ukraine from using the weaponry it supplies to strike targets in Russia, takes a very different stance from the UK. Even Kyiv has been discouraged by the US from utilizing its own domestic resources to do this.
When it comes to giving Ukraine armaments like main battle tanks or long-range missiles, Britain has consistently taken the lead. In the process, it has been demonstrated that the root cause of Washington and Berlin’s concerns about “escalation” is a very effective Russian ruse.
However, in recent months, the UK’s moral authority has been called into question due to its unwillingness to re-equip its armed forces in the manner that it is pushing other European states to do. Its lofty declarations of defense expenditure have proven to be insufficient upon closer examination.
Cameron has also stated that since “we’ve just really emptied all we can in terms of giving equipment,” Britain’s long-term commitment to aiding Ukraine would now mostly be financial. Regretfully, he promptly negated the impact of that pledge by dismissing the possibility of Western forces being stationed in Ukraine.
Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, has issued several warnings that if Ukraine is unable to stop Russia’s aggression, European forces may be compelled to step in. Russia must comprehend this, since the last thing Moscow desires is a direct military confrontation with NATO members.
Nevertheless, the idea has been met with dismay by other European politicians. At the conclusion of his visit to Ukraine, Cameron declared, “I don’t think it is right to have NATO soldiers killing Russian soldiers.” That may still be the case today, but given Russia’s increasing ambitions, it serves as a reminder of why NATO should deploy its soldiers.
Regardless of whether it’s a feasible idea for some NATO members, it makes no sense to openly rule out a Western military presence in Ukraine. One of the biggest concerns of the Kremlin is just the possibility.
All that does is persuade Putin that he can carry on with the war with far less concern for the likely consequences when Cameron and others openly reject that choice. Rather, more European leaders, including the UK, ought to take Macron’s lead and maintain “strategic ambiguity,” which is simply refusing to tell your enemy what you will not do.