5 Former Defence Secretaries Urge UK to Allow Ukraine to Use Long Range Missiles

[Social Media]

 

Boris Johnson, alongside five former defence secretaries, has called on the UK government to permit Ukraine to use British-made Storm Shadow missiles against Russia. The group, which includes prominent figures such as Grant Shapps, Ben Wallace, Gavin Williamson, Penny Mordaunt, and Liam Fox, argues that Ukraine should be granted this capability, even without the approval of the United States.

 

The pressure on UK leadership comes after recent talks between Sir Keir Starmer and President Joe Biden in Washington. Despite discussions, there was no agreement on whether the UK and US would jointly allow Kyiv to use these long-range missiles. However, Boris Johnson and his colleagues believe there is an urgent need to act, warning that delays could bolster Russian President Vladimir Putin’s position in the ongoing war.

 

Shapps voiced his concerns, stating, "Rather than waiting for formal approval from the US, Sir Keir needs to provide President Zelensky with what’s desperately needed today. That’s how we assumed our global leadership position in supporting Ukraine." Similarly, Wallace expressed the view that Britain risks "falling behind into the pack of ditherers, appeasers, and delayers" if immediate action isn't taken, stressing that strength and unity are essential in standing up to a leader like Putin.

 

The calls from the former defence secretaries come at a time of increasing pressure, following Russia’s warnings that such military actions could escalate tensions between NATO countries and Moscow. Putin has said that allowing long-range missile strikes would mean that "NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are at war with Russia." Despite these warnings, Johnson remains adamant, telling the *Mail on Sunday*, "There is no conceivable case for delay. The only person who fears escalation is Vladimir Putin, and every day that goes by is a lost opportunity to save lives and bring about a just conclusion to this war."

 

David Lammy, the UK's foreign secretary, responded to these calls on *BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg*, downplaying the focus on Storm Shadow missiles. He emphasized that "no war is won with any one weapon," and highlighted the broader support the UK has already provided to Ukraine, including training troops. Lammy also dismissed Putin's threats, noting that despite repeated warnings from the Russian leader, the West has continued to supply Ukraine with tanks and missiles. Speaking to Sky News, Lammy remarked, "We won’t be bullied by Putin’s shameless grandstanding."

 

The intervention by Johnson and the former defence secretaries also comes amid alarming reports that Russia may have provided Iran with nuclear secrets in exchange for ballistic missiles. If true, such a development could further complicate the international situation, especially as Iran advances its uranium enrichment program. Western allies, including the US, UK, France, and Germany, have condemned Iran’s alleged arms shipments to Russia and imposed additional sanctions on Tehran.

 

As the debate over the use of Storm Shadow missiles intensifies, Gavin Williamson added to the pressure, calling on Starmer to demonstrate decisive leadership. "From the start of this war, Britain has not hesitated to take a lead when others have hesitated," Williamson said. "Starmer needs to show that same leadership and determination. Failing to do so would be a dereliction of his duty."

 

The situation remains fluid, with further discussions expected to take place at the United Nations later this month. But with tensions rising and Russia's continued aggression in Ukraine, the question of whether the UK will allow Kyiv to use its long-range missiles has become a pivotal issue in the West's response to the conflict.

 

Credit: The Independent 2024-09-17

 

 

 

[Tug]

Good land one on putins noggin that would be great!👍 

[impulse]

They must own stock in Raytheon and Lockheed.  Go ahead and poke that bear.  What could possibly go wrong?

 

 

[gargamon]

Ukraine should have never given up the nukes they inherited when the USSR collapsed in the 90's. They'd still have Crimea. Too bad they trusted the Russians when they said they'd never invade.

[JeffersLos]

As long as they're used against legitimate military targets, weapons factories etc, and they're comfortable with Russia using long range missiles on the UK, then go for it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

[Tug]

17 minutes ago, impulse said:

They must own stock in Raytheon and Lockheed.  Go ahead and poke that bear.  What could possibly go wrong?

 

 

The bear has been well and truly poked allready it appears that he’s not up for the fight .Ukraine has pulled his claws.the bear knows if he escalates he will face the wrath of the free world……he can’t even vanquish Ukraine……kind wish he would escalate a bit so nato can jump in and run that despot out of Ukraine and let the Russian people deal with him.

Edited Tuesday at 12:42 AM by Tug

[gargamon]

4 minutes ago, JeffersLos said:

As long as they're used against legitimate military targets, weapons factories etc, and they're comfortable with Russia using long range missiles on the UK, then go for it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

Too bad for Russia that their military equipment is so outdated by comparison.

[jippytum]

Time those horrible Russians got a taste of  retribution in their own country

[NativeBob]

everybody run for Raytheon! It is hot and only getting hotter. 

 

PS: Sayonara

Edited Tuesday at 06:05 AM by NativeBob

[James105]

Jeez these psychopaths are determined to escalate this into something bigger.   How about being radical and seeking de-escalation and peace negotiations instead of keeping the war going.   

[mikeymike100]

25 minutes ago, James105 said:

Jeez these psychopaths are determined to escalate this into something bigger.   How about being radical and seeking de-escalation and peace negotiations instead of keeping the war going.   

Yes, but someone somewhere is making a killing (no pun intended), usually arms manufacturers and bankers!

[koolkarl]

You can only stretch an elastic so far before it snaps.  A very dangerous game is being played.

[RayC]

33 minutes ago, James105 said:

Jeez these psychopaths are determined to escalate this into something bigger.   How about being radical and seeking de-escalation and peace negotiations instead of keeping the war going.   

 

How about Putin withdraws Russian troops from Ukrainian territory? That would de-escalate things.

 

Discussions could then start about the amount and types of reparation which Moscow should make.

[James105]

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

How about Putin withdraws Russian troops from Ukrainian territory? That would de-escalate things.

 

Discussions could then start about the amount and types of reparation which Moscow should make.

 

If your goal is a forever war then that is an excellent approach to take.  

 

Both Ukraine and Russia are corrupt.  The media spreads propaganda suggesting this is good vs evil but I doubt that is even close to being true.   What is accurate is there are no winners in war other than the arms manufacturers and those who help themselves to the money being used to fund it.  The losers are:

 

1. Russian people.

2. Ukrainian people.

3.  The western taxpayers funding this nonsense.

 

The only reason it continues is that the western taxpayer is funding it.  Nobody voted to fund this war in the USA or the UK and I should think taxpayers from these countries could think of many, many better things to spend the money on.    Remove the funding and Zelenski and Putin will be forced to negotiate.    

[RayC]

3 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

If your goal is a forever war then that is an excellent approach to take.  

 

Both Ukraine and Russia are corrupt.  The media spreads propaganda suggesting this is good vs evil but I doubt that is even close to being true.   What is accurate is there are no winners in war other than the arms manufacturers and those who help themselves to the money being used to fund it.  The losers are:

 

1. Russian people.

2. Ukrainian people.

3.  The western taxpayers funding this nonsense.

 

The only reason it continues is that the western taxpayer is funding it.  Nobody voted to fund this war in the USA or the UK and I should think taxpayers from these countries could think of many, many better things to spend the money on.    Remove the funding and Zelenski and Putin will be forced to negotiate.    

 

Unproven premise: Why should allowing Ukraine more scope to defend itself result in 'forever war'?

 

'Both Ukraine and Russia are corrupt': Completely irrelevant.

 

'There are no winners in war': If the result of this war is that Russia is able to redraw its' borders with Ukraine and/or is given any concessions, it will have won.

 

Ukraine has internationally agreed borders. Russia has violated them. Your approach is simple appeasement and results in the aggressor effectively being rewarded.

 

If your goal is to reward those who initiate war then your approach cannot be faulted.

[WDSmart]

Five former UK Defense Secretaries and me...

[thesetat2013]

Isn't it obvious that as soon as one country approves using their weapons for long range attacks. That others will follow. War is money and selling weapons during a war is very profitable. It's no wonder these people are trying to convince their country to allow using their weapons this way. I would bet my hat that some probably have a vested interest in weapons manufacturing or sales. 

[James105]

7 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Unproven premise: Why should allowing Ukraine more scope to defend itself result in 'forever war'?

 

'Both Ukraine and Russia are corrupt': Completely irrelevant.

 

'There are no winners in war': If the result of this war is that Russia is able to redraw its' borders with Ukraine and/or is given any concessions, it will have won.

 

Ukraine has internationally agreed borders. Russia has violated them. Your approach is simple appeasement and results in the aggressor effectively being rewarded.

 

If your goal is to reward those who initiate war then your approach cannot be faulted.

 

How long is too long for you for this to go on for?

 

Another 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Forever?  

 

Do you want UK and US troops to be involved?  Maybe a nuclear bomb or 2?   How much money do you think is too much?  another $100bn?  $1tn?  $10tn?  

 

If you don't want this to continue forever what do you suggest to stop it? I don't particularly care if someone is considered a 'winner' as I am not a child and think there are better things to do with these resources.   Unless the western military get involved (which would be a ridiculous waste of life and money) then it will be a forever stand off.  Yes some lines might get redrawn and some people will have to swap one corrupt leader for another but at least they will live.   

 

My suggestion to save lives and stop wasting money is to stop funding it.   What is yours?  

[Purdey]

Great way to escalate this to the point that Putin sees nuclear weapons as the only was of stopping the Ukraine. 

The former UK Defence Secretaries probably don't understand that World War I started after a foreigner was assassinated and grew from there.

[billd766]

51 minutes ago, thesetat2013 said:

Isn't it obvious that as soon as one country approves using their weapons for long range attacks. That others will follow. War is money and selling weapons during a war is very profitable. It's no wonder these people are trying to convince their country to allow using their weapons this way. I would bet my hat that some probably have a vested interest in weapons manufacturing or sales. 

That is what the Russians are doing already.

 

Why not shut down ALL the support for the Ukraine and simply give the country to Russia as an appeasement gift.

 

IMHO that is what Trump wants to do.

 

The problem for Putin is there are not many countries left in Europe that he can pick off and invade.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

Five former UK Defense Secretaries and me...

And me.

[billd766]

10 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Great way to escalate this to the point that Putin sees nuclear weapons as the only was of stopping the Ukraine. 

The former UK Defence Secretaries probably don't understand that World War I started after a foreigner was assassinated and grew from there.

They probably understand that far more than you do.

[billd766]

58 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

How long is too long for you for this to go on for?

 

Another 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Forever?  

 

Do you want UK and US troops to be involved?  Maybe a nuclear bomb or 2?   How much money do you think is too much?  another $100bn?  $1tn?  $10tn?  

 

If you don't want this to continue forever what do you suggest to stop it? I don't particularly care if someone is considered a 'winner' as I am not a child and think there are better things to do with these resources.   Unless the western military get involved (which would be a ridiculous waste of life and money) then it will be a forever stand off.  Yes some lines might get redrawn and some people will have to swap one corrupt leader for another but at least they will live.   

 

My suggestion to save lives and stop wasting money is to stop funding it.   What is yours?  

Why?

 

It is NOT your country to give away.

 

The trouble with using nuclear weapons is that NOBODY on either side wins.

 

If one side claims a win their country will be devastated and nobody will be able to live there for many decades. There will be no food, no uncontaminated water, no transport, no roads, no hospitals, in fact there will be nothing worth salvaging.

 

There may be the odd pocket or 2 of survivors but the whole world will be affected.

 

All the politicians etc in their hardened bunker will still be in power, but they will have power over nothing.

 

I suspect that even Putin knows that.

 

I also believe that all the militaries know that by firing the first nuclear, they are signing their own death warrants.

[RayC]

8 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

How long is too long for you for this to go on for?

 

Another 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Forever?  

 

Do you want UK and US troops to be involved?  Maybe a nuclear bomb or 2?   How much money do you think is too much?  another $100bn?  $1tn?  $10tn?  

 

If you don't want this to continue forever what do you suggest to stop it? I don't particularly care if someone is considered a 'winner' as I am not a child and think there are better things to do with these resources.   Unless the western military get involved (which would be a ridiculous waste of life and money) then it will be a forever stand off.  Yes some lines might get redrawn and some people will have to swap one corrupt leader for another but at least they will live.   

 

My suggestion to save lives and stop wasting money is to stop funding it.   What is yours?  

 

You may not be a child - neither am I - but imo it is childish - naive at best - to imply that winning is unimportant when it comes to war: Whatever the eventual outcome of this war, there will have been human, economic and political costs for both sides, however, one side will lose more than the other.

 

This will not be a 'forever' war. At some point, one side will back down. When will that be? I have no idea. Do I think that NATO troops should be deployed on the ground? Frankly, I don't know. (Limited) nuclear war? I suppose that it is possible. MAD? Imo extremely unlikely. Economics  undoubtedly plays a part in wars and - if the apparent military stalemate continues - economics will probably dictate when this war ends. From the West's perspective, should we consider that stage to have already been reached? Imo, no.

 

The implication that the only consequence of submitting to Russian demands wrt Ukraine will be the latter replacing one corrupt leadership with another is naive. A Russian victory in Ukraine will have lasting and widespread repercussions. There will be a change in the balance of power in Europe. Putin believes that Russia's 'sphere of influence' extends to its' neighbouring states. Putin will be emboldened and may start to make demands of the Baltic States. What then?

 

And what of the wider implications? A victory for Russia is a de facto defeat for the US. Do you not think that China is looking on with interest and evaluating what implications this might have for their actions in Taiwan/ the South China Sea.

 

War is bad. It should be avoided. However, unfortunately sometimes it is necessary.

[Tropicalevo]

Russia is using weapons, from third party countries, to kill civilians in Ukraine.

Ukraine should be allowed to do the same.

To all of the frightened folk who say NO - it is not an escalation, it is a response in kind.

[impulse]

I don't suppose anyone's given thought to the possibility that the best thing for Ukraine right now would be a cease fire, even with the current lines intact.  That would allow them years to rebuild their capabilities and go after Russia when they're ready.

 

Of course, they may also look at what happened to Germany when they came back after the Armistice and after they had rebuilt...

 

[300sd]

13 hours ago, Social Media said:

Similarly, Wallace expressed the view that Britain risks "falling behind into the pack of ditherers, appeasers, and delayers" if immediate action isn't taken,

Better then being a nuke target! Russian will use them.

[James105]

35 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

You may not be a child - neither am I - but imo it is childish - naive at best - to imply that winning is unimportant when it comes to war: Whatever the eventual outcome of this war, there will have been human, economic and political costs for both sides, however, one side will lose more than the other.

 

This will not be a 'forever' war. At some point, one side will back down. When will that be? I have no idea. Do I think that NATO troops should be deployed on the ground? Frankly, I don't know. (Limited) nuclear war? I suppose that it is possible. MAD? Imo extremely unlikely. Economics  undoubtedly plays a part in wars and - if the apparent military stalemate continues - economics will probably dictate when this war ends. From the West's perspective, should we consider that stage to have already been reached? Imo, no.

 

The implication that the only consequence of submitting to Russian demands wrt Ukraine will be the latter replacing one corrupt leadership with another is naive. A Russian victory in Ukraine will have lasting and widespread repercussions. There will be a change in the balance of power in Europe. Putin believes that Russia's 'sphere of influence' extends to its' neighbouring states. Putin will be emboldened and may start to make demands of the Baltic States. What then?

 

And what of the wider implications? A victory for Russia is a de facto defeat for the US. Do you not think that China is looking on with interest and evaluating what implications this might have for their actions in Taiwan/ the South China Sea.

 

War is bad. It should be avoided. However, unfortunately sometimes it is necessary.

 

Honestly, the people supporting this never ending war just sound like proles from 1984 to me at this point, pontificating about something where the only knowledge they have is the propaganda they are fed from the media.  It's tiresome.  

 

The west is enabling this war by funding it.  The sooner this stops the sooner the war ends.  

[Tropicalevo]

8 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Honestly, the people supporting this never ending war just sound like proles from 1984 to me at this point, pontificating about something where the only knowledge they have is the propaganda they are fed from the media.  It's tiresome.  

 

The west is enabling this war by funding it.  The sooner this stops the sooner the war ends.  

I think that the Ukrainian people might not be in agreement with your theory comrade.

[RayC]

1 minute ago, James105 said:

 

Honestly, the people supporting this never ending war just sound like proles from 1984 to me at this point, pontificating about something where the only knowledge they have is the propaganda they are fed from the media.  It's tiresome.  

 

The west is enabling this war by funding it.  The sooner this stops the sooner the war ends.  

 

Here we go again ..... Those of us who read newspapers and watch TV are being "fed propaganda", whilst the 'enlightened' source their undeniable 'facts' from 'alternative' sources (heavy sarcasm intended).

 

The people I find tiresome are those who -  when offered a different perspective to their tedious 'The West is to blame for everything' narrative - are unable to mount a credible defence of their position.