The Council on Geostrategy has released new research, commissioned by the Ministry of Defence (MOD), calling on the British government to collaborate with allies in providing Ukraine with long-range and advanced weapons to defeat Russia in its ongoing war of aggression.
The report comes as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky presents his ‘victory plan’ during his visit to the United States this week.
The report, titled ‘The trilateral initiative: A minilateral to catalyse Russia’s defeat?’, argues that the UK, alongside key European partners such as Poland, must take bold leadership by supplying Ukraine with the weaponry necessary to target Russia’s military infrastructure, particularly in the frontier zone.
This zone serves as a key base for Russia’s strikes on Ukrainian territory.
You can read the Point Paper here.
The study, written by James Rogers and William Freer from the Council on Geostrategy, outlines the critical importance of Ukraine’s victory, warning of the severe consequences for Europe and NATO unity should Russia emerge victorious. It highlights the need for the UK to revive the 2022 ‘trilateral initiative,’ which initially united Britain, Poland, and Ukraine in a shared effort to secure Ukraine’s success.
Key to this initiative is the provision of long-range weapons that would allow Ukraine to strike Russian targets en masse, particularly calling for the destruction of the Crimean Bridge. This symbolic and logistical link between Russia and occupied Crimea has been identified as a key target to weaken Russia’s ability to wage war in southern Ukraine.
The paper also notes that a Ukrainian victory, facilitated by UK leadership, could reassert Britain’s role on the global stage and reconnect the nation with key European allies.
In contrast, a Russian victory would carry significant economic and political costs for the UK, potentially destabilising NATO and forcing Britain to divert resources away from domestic priorities such as economic growth and Net Zero initiatives.
Council on Geostrategy’s James Rogers, Director of Research, and William Freer, Research Fellow in National Security, said:
“Ukraine is at a critical moment with victory possible, but there is currently no clear strategy to secure a Russian defeat. A Russian victory is also still possible, but this would endanger NATO unity and emphasise the idea that “might makes right”.The economic consequences of a Russian victory would also be severe, especially for the UK, as it would jeopardise missions to deliver economic growth and Net Zero with Britain forced instead to invest more into defence.
Facing political irresolution in France, Germany and, potentially, the US, it falls to the new British government to provide the leadership needed to help Ukraine. The new British government has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore the partnership formed with Poland and Ukraine, and deliver victory for Ukraine.”
The UK must not act unilaterally on this issue and all agreements conducted through NATO. You can make all kinds of parallels from history where past actions have made a key difference and this could be just one of those occasions.
P.S.
Is it my computer (which is brand new) or is this site experiencing some problems as I’m getting a slow response when opening and sending replies??? This is not evident on other sites.
Probably Johninmk’s mates carrying out ddos on the site, it was named in a recent Russian tantrum about Western media spreading lies.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm??
I’ve had that too, recently.
Am experiencing difficulty accessing this site. 2 days now.
…and I lost notifications of replies to my posts, about a month ago!
?
It is very slow and has been for a few days now.
Yes it’s been very delayed over the last few days, not just you.
We may have no choice, France and Germany have always been useless to a certain extent when it came to action but unfortunately the US is rapidly joining them. Doesn’t matter if it’s Harris or the Donald US foreign policy is only going one way which is very much a return to the 1940’s of isolationism unless the other side are Asian at which point we try and wynd them up as much as possible to start a war.
It’s likely to be the UK, Poland and the JEF countries leading anything against Russia.
I highly doubt any major decision is made without some level of coordination with the US. I also don’t expect any major policy decision changes coming out of the US before the election. If Harris wins, I expect continued support and even a likely increase in Ukr aid. If the convicted felon wins, then expect champagne bottles to start popping in Moscow.
Although polling is going the democrats way at present, so hopefully Moscow will have to cancel its party.
I fundamentally disagree.
NATO will take no significant action without US involvement. The US is paralysed by an election. There is a 50% chance that that election US will immediately suspend any effort to aid UKR. Then a slow and painful loss ensues that will leave NATO and Europe in particular looking over a new Iron Curtain with all its long term costs.
Unfortunately a coalition that does not include the US will not succeed.
I guess that means that UKR survival is 50/50.
What we can not forget is the enormous contribution the US made to winning the two World Wars and its sacrifices. After the Second World War the US forces in Europe basically installed themselves in permanent bases in many countries. In the UK former RAF stations were virtually commandeered on the assumption we would not resist such a direct policy due to our dependence on their sheer power. However, this may have appeared to be an act of kinship but in the main it was self preservation and considering the billions of dollars spent in reforming Germany and huge US business acquisitions they weren’t going to leave them exposed to the Soviet Union. Under no circumstances will America fight its way back into Europe, the cost in lives and money would be prohibitive. No matter who gets into power NATO will still be heavily dependant on the USA and the occupier of the White House whether it’s mad or otherwise, won’t vacate Europe in four short years. The more likely action could be a modest realignment resulting in less boots on the ground during more peaceful periods.
Show some bloody back bone and give Ukraine the ability to match the threats they face. If the US in particular want to be spineless that’s not our problem.
It’s not that easy being a member of NATO we cannot do things that MIGHT endanger other members! The authority to use our Storm Shadow believe it or not has to come from SACEUR
Sort of. There is a US component to the guidance system (mapping software I believe), so the issue is not so much NATO membership as legal entitlements to Intellectual Property. for the same reason the US needs our government’s approval for sales involving components from e.g. RR or BAE.
The Baltics, Poland, Moldavia are endagered by allowing Russia to act freely in UKR. Then there’s the message of incompetance & disinterest it gives to the CCP regarding her own neo-colonial ambitions.
Besides, Russia & China actively attack Western Europe & the USA with cyber warfare, even used chemical weapons to kill opponents here in the UK.
No argument from me! Use them I say,I was only retelling what I heard on a podcast about using the weapons
Any NATO nation can do what the hell it wants, Turkey had a particular habit of playing hard. But we do have to follow any agreements around weapons with foreign components. Like stormshadow.
I dont believe being a member of NATO affects in any way us giving them storm shadow or other weapons. Only because they have an American component do they get a say. Otherwise NATO is a defensive treaty and doesnt affect us giving Ukraine weapons
Of course we can give them what we want! How it was explained to me was as it’s NATO coordinating the weapons delivery to Ukraine there could be a risk of pootin using that as an excuse to hit a NATO country therefore bring everybody in! Unlikely I know but as SACEUR is an American guess who he answers to in the end? Apparently there is a.clause in the NATO charter somewhere but I’m not going to wade through that to find it.
To my mind as Pootin annexed all the occupied territories and called them Russia there’s nothing stopping us letting Ukraine hit anywhere in Russia as they are doing that anyway according to Pootins logic.
Realistically we need to accept that we are “forced instead to invest more into defence” in any case. Even if Russia is defeated, China’s ambitions will be undiminished and can’t be ignored, and the situation in the Middle East isn’t looking too hopeful either. Fortunately, increased military expenditure can be a facilitator of economic growth, so this isn’t necessarily an either/or scenario. As for ‘Net zero’, our own contributions to global emissions are so small that it really doesn’t matter if we make any progress in that regard or not.
And so we should. Russia has no such restrictions & bombards at will in UKR with munitions from anywhere they can get them. Any military/strategic target aiding Russia’s invasion should be allowed. We should not be facilitating the slow devouring of UKR. Rather we should be guaranteeing her victory, driving out Russian occupiers & war ciminals.
Report states: “Ukraine is at a critical moment with victory possible, but there is currently no clear strategy to secure a Russian defeat”.
I see little evidence that an outright Ukrainian military victory is actually possible. The only way to defeat Russia militarily is first to turn the current tide around and then to inflict such damage/losses that the current Russian regime collapses. Then one has to hope that any new regime that replaces the current one is actually willing to withdraw from Ukraine, walking away from Russia’s already half a million casualties in the process. All the while, one has to hope that Russia, facing imminent defeat in a region it deems vital, will not resort to nuclear weapons.
If we are honest, such a military outcome is highly unlikely and, at the same time, involves extremely high risk. So far, most NATO nations, including the US, seem unwilling to run this risk.