Britain has “not ruled out” supplying Ukraine with missiles with sufficient range to destroy missile systems in Russia which may be targeting civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.

The answer came to light in response to a written questions ssked by Lord Blencathra.

“To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to supply Ukraine with missiles with sufficient range to destroy missile systems in Russia which may be targeting civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.”

Baroness Goldie, Minister of State fr the Ministry of Defence, responded:

“The UK will keep our support to Ukraine under review and has not ruled out the possibility of providing longer range weapons systems to counter Russia’s recent indiscriminate mass targeting of civilian infrastructure.

We have provided Ukraine with military aid on the understanding that it will be used in accordance with international humanitarian law. We liaise on a daily basis with the Ukrainian Government, and they are clear that equipment provided by the UK is intended for the defence of Ukraine.”

What has Britain already given Ukraine?

The UK has provided Ukraine with various forms of military aid since 2015, including training 22,000 troops, sale of minehunters and missile craft, deployment of surveillance aircraft and ISTAR support, provision of anti-armour and anti-tank weapons, and further unspecified lethal aid.

Additionally, the UK has provided helmets, night vision equipment, body armor, electronic warfare equipment, counter battery radar, GPS jammers, drones, heavy lift cargo drones, and Brimstone missiles. The UK also announced £1.3 billion in military support, including £300 million in May, and £1 billion in June. It has also offered to provide training to 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers every four months.

Take a seat, here’s the list.

  • Trained 22,000 Ukrainian troops since 2015 as part of Operation Orbital. This operation was suspended following the full-scale Russian invasion; a new British-led multinational operation commenced on 9 July 2022 as part of Operation Interflex.
  • Sale of two Sandown-class minehunters.
  • £1.7 billion sterling agreement to support the acquisition of eight missile craft and one frigate.
  • Deployment of RC-135W Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft to provide information on size and position of Russian forces.
  • ISTAR (intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance) support, both standalone and in partnership with the United States.
  • Delivered “thousands” of NLAW anti-armour weapons and Javelin anti-tank missiles. The total amount was stated to be over 6,500 as of 3 June 2022.
  • Unspecified further military aid, on 28 February 2022.
  • Unspecified number of Javelin anti-tank missiles, on 10 March 2022.
  • The UK announced a further 6,000 defensive missiles will be sent to Ukraine, on 24 March 2022.
  • Starstreak man-portable air-defence systems.
  • UK announced the supply of an unspecified amount of “armoured vehicles and long-range artillery” to Ukraine, on 31 March 2022, on 9 April a figure of 120 armoured vehicles was given along with an unspecified number of anti-ship missiles. A 14 April interview gave the following partial breakdown:
  • British Army donates 84,000 helmets to Ukraine.
  • UK announced an additional £100 million in military aid, on 8 April. This includes further Starstreak missiles, 800 NLAW, Javelin anti-tank missiles and precision loitering munitions. Further military helmets, night vision equipment and body armour will be provided on top of 200,000 pieces of non-lethal military equipment supplied so far.
  • UK announced further unspecified amount of lethal military aid to Ukraine on 23 April. “The Prime Minister confirmed that the UK is providing more defensive military aid, including protected mobility vehicles, drones and anti-tank weapons.”
  • The UK announced a further £300 million in military aid to Ukraine. Boris Johnson made this announcement in a videolink address to the Rada, on the 3 May.
    • Electronic warfare equipment.
    • Counter battery radar.
    • GPS jammers.
    • ‘Thousands’ of night vision devices.
    • 13 bulletproof Babcock Toyota Land Cruiser for civilian officials such as mayors and evacuation operations.
    • Heavy lift cargo drones.
  • The UK has been supplying an unspecified number of British made Brimstone missiles into Ukraine.
  • The UK announced a further £1 billion in military support to Ukraine. The total sum was £1.3 billion (US$1.6 billion), however, this included the £300 million that was pledged on 3 May.
  • 30 March, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office provided £20 million to the Ukrainian Armed Forces for salaries through a deposit in the National Bank of Ukraine, followed by a further £5 million on 18 May
  • 6 June, the United Kingdom confirmed it would provide an unspecified number of M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System along with M31A1 ammunition and provide training to the Ukrainian operators in the UK.
  • 16 June, confirmed 20 used M109 howitzer had been bought from a Belgian arms dealer, refurbished and partially delivered to Ukraine.
  • 17 June, the UK offered to set up and administer a program to provide three weeks general infantry, first aid, cyber security, and counter-explosive tactics training to 10,000 Ukrainian soldiers every four months hosted by a neighbouring country. This would better equip Ukraine to replace battlefield casualties.
  • 27 June, from this week, 200 Ukrainian soldiers are set to arrive in the UK every day to receive training from the UK’s Armed Forces, the Chief of the Defence Staff said.
  • 28 June, during the NATO summit in Madrid the UK committed to providing Ukraine a further £1 billion of military support towards the acquisition of “sophisticated” air defence systems, electronic warfare equipment, drones and ammunition for long range rocket artillery.
  • 29 June, The UK facilitated the transfer of 3 Norwegian MLRS systems. The Norwegian systems will need upgrading, so the UK will receive and upgrade the Norwegian MLRS pieces, to backfill upgraded British pieces already being sent to Ukraine.
  • 30 June, The UK revealed it had been training hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers on British Artillery Systems on Salisbury Plain (UK). The UK also stated it had purchased 50 L119 Howitzers from a British company and will be deploying these weapons to Ukraine imminently. The New Zealand Army has deployed personnel who are training Ukrainian soldiers on L119 artillery pieces in the UK (see NZ entry above).
  • On the 21 July British Secretary of Defence, Ben Wallance, announced the UK will send “50,000 artillery shells, counter-battery radar systems and hundreds of drones” and “scores” of artillery guns over the coming weeks along with 1,600 anti-tank weapons.
    • 20 M109 155mm self-propelled guns;
    • 36 L119 105mm artillery guns; and
    • 50,000 of rounds for Ukraine’s Soviet era artillery.
  • 11 August The UK confirmed it was delivering an additional three M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System and M31A1 rockets, the previous day Ukraine had announced that the equipment had been received.
  • 24 August UK announced a £54m package including 850 Black Hornet Nano drones, 200 surveillance drones and ~1000 anti-tank loitering munitions. (See also the Norwegian announcement the same day)
  • 27 August, the British MoD announced it would provide six mine-hunting UUVs to Ukraine along with training Ukrainian naval personnel in their use.
  • 13 October The UK announced further donations;
    • AMRAAM missiles to equip the NASAMS air defence systems supplied by the US.
    • “Hundreds” of additional air defence missiles, of other types previously provided.
    • “Hundreds” of additional aerial drones.
    • 18 howitzer artillery guns on top of the 64 already delivered.
    • £10m donation to the NATO fund for buying non-lethal military aid.
  • 7 November announcement
    • 1,000 Surface-to-air missiles
    • 7,400 Ukrainian soldiers and 60 junior officers have completed British army training as of 7 November, 1,900 in training.
    • Over 9,000 troops passing through training issued helmet, body armour, webbing and first aid kit to retain on completion.
    • Troops passing out of training from now on will be issued cold weather gear including 25,000 sets of winter clothing, 20,000 sleeping bags and roll mats and 150 heated tents.
  • On 19 November during a visit to Kyiv new UK PM Rishi Sunak announced a £50 million package of 125 anti-aircraft guns, radars and anti-drone equipment.”
  • On 23 November Defence Secretary Ben Wallace announced Britain was donating three Westland Sea King helicopters for Search and Rescue around Kherson (speculated to be in an Anti-submarine warfare configuration) with the first already delivered and 10 Ukrainian crews had been training on them during the last six weeks, in addition a further 10,000 artillery rounds were provided.
  • On 15 January 2023 UK PM Rishi Sunak announced the UK would be sending Ukraine Challenger 2 tanks and AS90 155mm self-propelled Howitzers. More detail followed in Ben Wallace statement to Parliament on 16 January.
    • 14 Challenger 2 tanks as well as armoured recovery and repair vehicles
    • 30 AS90 155mm self-propelled Howitzers
    • Hundreds more armoured and protected vehicles including FV430 Bulldog
    • A manoeuvre support package, including minefield breaching and bridging capabilities worth £28 million
    • Dozens more uncrewed aerial systems worth £20 million to support Ukrainian artillery.
    • A further 100,000 artillery rounds
    • Hundreds more missiles including GMLRS rockets, Starstreak missiles, and medium range air defence missiles
    • Spare parts to refurbish 100 Ukrainian tanks and IFV’s
George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

126 COMMENTS

  1. That’s a weird question, and answer.
    As far as I’m aware, the miisile attacks “from Russia” are being almost completely prosecuted by strategic aircraft, they’re not ground launched. The only things surface launched are from vessels of the Black Sea fleet. If there are any ground launches from Russia, they’ll almost certainly be from mobile TELs which will be difficult to pinpoint at range.
    So, are we suggesting that we’ll give Ukraine the capability to target Russia’s strategic bomber fleet, on the ground or in the air? They’re part of Russia’s nuclear deterrent, so it wouldn’t be dissimilar from them trying to take out our SSBNs- it’s a very different escalation from giving them euqipment to kill tanks.
    Or maybe longer range AShMs, to go after the surface fleet. But we don’t have any, unless we’ll pay for them to get some NSM batteries or something.
    As for the TELs, I could see that. But the kill chain will be the challenge there, I think. NATO AWACs stay in Romanian airspace, so I don’t believe they can see all that far into Russia, unlikely far enough to be able to see where ground launched cruise/balllistic missiles were launched from with enough accuracy to give a firing solution.
    I don’t doubt Ukraine has a right to go after the launch systems, just wondering how that’ll work…

    • Weird indeed, sounds like a preplanned question to get a statement in Hansard. It certainly would take us on a journey down the rabbit hole. If NATO supply Ukraine with weapons that can strike Russian nuclear deterrent along with targeting data. The very type of escalation the world can do without.
      Is the launch signature of TELs detectable from space.

      • Yeah, quite- it’s frankly on a different scale to even sending our entire fleet of Challenger 2s.
        I think you can spot the launch, yes, but it relies on you having a satellite in the right place at the right time, and there being clear skies. I remember reading something about being about to spot North Korean ones, so I assume it works the same for Russians!

        • Whilst the Stormshadow gives a longer range when air launched this is a similar scenario to the US providing the ATACMS long range MLRS missile. The Russians reacted strongly to that suggestion, I expect that they will do the same in this case.

          In the interests of keeping this war contained to Ukraine, it is possible that the Russians told the US what their response would be. We do know that the US has made no move to supply any to the UA.

          I suspect that were any Stormshadows to be supplied the targets selected by the UA would likely be military in Crimea or the Rostok area, rather than poke the bear with attacks on Russian strategic weapons sites.

          • This one is pretty amusing, your “experienced” assessment of your mates plans:

            Douglas Newell
            10 months ago
            Reply to Andy a
            That’s a good question. it does seem odd. :o)

            I do wonder if that convoy has been left as a tempting target to draw the UkAF out and Russkies are waiting to strike

          • An assortment of “Airborne Specials” there mate. Good work.
            You’d make a good researcher!

          • Looks more like Grade 1 bullying to me, intended to shut down views not in tune with his own on this site. Someone pops up, often puts an entirely valid but different point of view, gets jumped on and is never heard of again. This is not how a fair and open forum should operate.

            Its a waste of effort digging up irrelevances from the time when Ukraine and the activities of both sides were quite different 9-10 months ago. The Russians in particular caught commentators, right to the top of the military, wrong footed as they didn’t do what was expected and still aren’t. I got lots wrong.

          • Bullying? I care to differ. I’ve been bullied in life so I know what that involves, and Airborne does not bully anyone no more than other posters who may reply to what you post.

            Anyway, sorry, but you’ll get no sympathy from me regards how site members respond to many of your posts. I won’t involve myself directly in these exchanges, but I see why it happens based on what you do, and more importantly what you do not, or will not, say.

          • Coming from Putin’s mouth piece that is ironic as he has got to be the grates bully since Starlin!!

      • Probably a reasonable proposition to not unduly alarm a paranoid schizophrenic, w/ sole release authority for 5000+ nukes, w/out due consideration. Might choose to consult w/ all affected parties and develop consensus before initiating WW III. Dunno,.may be a crazy idea, just musing…🤔

      • That would be in line with the pic of Stormshadow on this article. However, that’s my problem- if we provide Ukraine with weaponry to take out Russia’s strategic nuclear bomber fleet, that is a major escalation.

        • Is it, though?

          Ukraine’s already struck a Russian airfield with bombers on it. Aren’t most of Russia’s bombers nuclear-capable? That would mean that Ukraine cannot strike any Russian bombers on the ground without escalating, which they’ve already done with no escalation on Russia’s part.

          We need to stop walking on eggshells with regards to Russia threatening to escalate; they threaten it all the time and they never do. They know that if they escalated to tactical nukes, say, that NATO would enter the war and kerb-stomp all Russian troops in Ukraine and Russian ships in the Black Sea.

          • Well, yes I think it is- politically if nothing else. China and other nuclear states are watching what we do, and we need to be mindful of that too.
            Ukraine has struck Russia’s strategic bomber fleet with a home grown, sovereign capability. That has already drawn calls for a nuclear response from Russian hawks, because of the impact it has on their nuclear posture and the balance of nuclear deterrent/MAD. This same argument is why we don’t put ABM systems too close to other nuclear capable countries, why we don’t build certain kinds/sizes of warhead, and why we limit the quantities of those warheads and how they are delivered.
            But if a NATO country provides the weapon system, that’s a different matter- that would be the equivalent of the Salisbury Novichok attacks being directed against Faslane’s naval personnel instead of an ex-Soviet agent. A direct, yet semi-deniable, attack against a nation’s nuclear deterrent. That’s a big deal.
            We could (and should, and thankfully are) send all kinds of equipment to Ukraine for killing armour, targetting fuel dumps, shooting down missiles and attack aircraft. This is very much a different thing, in my opinion- a true escalation. Whether Russia will respond to that is a different question, but we need to acknowledge it would be us escalating in a bit of a different direction on this one.
            If we want to protect from these air launched missiles, we’d do better to get them long range air to air missiles, so they can shoot them down in the air- very different level of deniability etc. than bunker busting long range cruise missiles for hitting strategic bomber bases.

          • In that case perhaps it’s better if NATO supplies more Patriots and similar systems to enable these bombers and their missiles to be shot down.

            We should still give Storm Shadow to Ukraine but then they use it on Russian targets in Crimea to soften them up in preparation for taking back the peninsula.

            To be honest, if Ukraine can take Crimea that would be the end of this war; it would be humiliation for Putin and I doubt he’d survive – either politically or just generally.

          • “We should still give Storm Shadow to Ukraine but then they use it on Russian targets in Crimea to soften them up in preparation for taking back the peninsula.”
            I am all for that, as long as we control our stocks of the weapon then they can have at it! I don’t believe it’s supposed to be used for anything other than static targets, but they may even be able to use it against those frigates in Sevastopol?

          • May be one way around this issue would be to equip the Ukrainians with kits that they could adapt to go further? By handing over Storm Shadow may be fuzzing the lines somewhat. Russian should fear reprisals from Ukraine and in greater numbers, but it would be by their hand and manufacture if such a thing were possible. Caution may be a wiser route on this particular issue.

          • Storm Shadow is still first line inventory until the new systems come online later in the decade.

            I’d not be too keen on that being sprayed around as

            a) I think it has a worthwhile life given that we have stockpile of them that work perfectly well on Typhoon; and

            b) As it is a long range strike weapon we don’t really want the Russians to get their mits on one?

            That said I am all in favour of giving the Ukrainians anything they needs like tanks and F16 (older so they don’t have current NATO comms in) and/or Polish MIG’s to get the job done.

          • Interesting thought, apparently the Russians have been fabbing their own wing kits for their dumb bombs too!
            The trick would be helping them create guidance kits with wings for their dumb bombs- essentially JDAM-ER for Russian-designed bombs. I’m not sure how difficult it’d be, but surely would cost about 1/3 of a Storm Shadow?!

          • The Russian version seems to be a real lashup as the fin section is welded to the bomb part so it is not easy to add tail guidance.

            If launched from aircraft the main problem in use would be they need to be launched high and fast to get any decent range and that is the domain of Russian long/medium range AD. The alternative seems to be low level ‘toss’ type launch (subject to much ridicule here). The only videos of aircraft I have seen dropping unpowered munitions have been Su-34, all the others fire rockets or missiles. With MANPADS all over the place no pilot wants to be near them.

            The second problem is reducing speed after launch which makes it vulnerable to short range AD.

            I might be wrong but I don’t believe that these weapons have faced a peer, layered, IADS. So how effective would they be?

            The attraction of Storm Shadow is that it is powered, which mitigates some of those issues to a degree and is a very good reason for its development.

    • Strange question but in theory could you have a storm shadow hung under a mig29 or similar aircraft and be launched a bit like HARM/brimstone missiles are – pre programmed on the ground before launch>

      • I honestly don’t know enough about Storm Shadow, but I’d be very surprised if it couldn’t be pre-programmed with coordinates prior to launch. So yes, I think so!

        • The Russians are launching 100s of shaheed drones from just inside Russian territory. The Russians are using the border regions as a safe area.
          Storing weapons, preparing logistics before going to the front and so on.
          Giving Ukraine the ability to destroy railheads, supply depots, fuel storage, drone prep areas etc that are a few hundred miles of the front is just another tool to use in a war. There are a lot of targets in Russian help areas that can’t be hit. Some more in the areas just outside Ukraine.
          If the Russians don’t like it they can withdraw anytime back to russia and the conflict will stop.

          • True, I hadn’t really considered the Shaheed drones, as the Parliamentary question said “missile systems”- they’re undoubtedly including the drones in that too. They would absolutely be a legit target, althoguh I reckon that Spear 3 would (in future, of course) be a better fit for taking them out.
            Those other logistical targets are all perfect, I’ve no problem with them- even ones just over the border in Russia. It’s just putting in Britain enabled strikes against Russia’s nuclear deterrent that seems a shade questionable.

    • Russia is firing S-300 in surface to surface mode, islander and the Bastion system I think an S300 battery could be targetted if located by satelites.
      Mig 31 are firing cruise missiles so targetttig those airbases may be a possibility.
      Engels airbase has already been hit with drones so a stormshadow fired from an adapted Mig 29 might be something Russia makes noises about but does very little..

      • There is no evidence I can see of Russia wasting their S-300 missiles in ground attack mode. They seem to have plenty of stock of the missiles you mention, plus others like the Kalbre. Also the Mig-31 seems to be reserved for CAP and Kinzhal launch use, maximising the effect of its speed, which would be wasted on cruise missiles.

        The big difference between an old Soviet era target drone updated into a cruise missile and a current stock UK attack missile would likely get a different response..

        • There is a precedence to Russia using its S300 for ground attack. This article from 2017 details them using them in such a way.
          https://tass.com/defense/938610/amp
          Ukraine has kept as many of the remains of missiles launched into Ukraine with evidence of where they landed, photos etc, including S300 missiles. Now while some have been used in air defence role, when a cluster of them land in the same positions that’s clearly in ground attack.
          There’s pics of hundreds of missiles laid out. The Ukrainians are trying to collect as much info as possible detailing strikes.
          The Russians should of been doing the same and allowing independent analysts in to what they have said are attacks on civilians from 2014-2022 to back up there reason for the invasion.

  2. Longer range systems such as…..????? We have Tomahawk, albeit sub launched, and Trident, do we actually have anything that can strike inside Russia, and let’s be honest, would that be wise??? By all means give Ukraine everything it needs to kick Russia off its soil, but attacks on Russia using Western weapons is a potentially dangerous road to go down.

    • We have Storm Shadow which has a range ~350 km. They could be integrated onto Ukrainian aircraft. Many missiles have also been launched by ships/subs in the Black Sea. Ukraine could hit these when they are in port in Sebastopol or have another go at the Crimea bridge. Plenty of useful targets. We should not make public if/when we have given these weapons over however.

        • Not officially. It would violate the MTCR to sell Ukraine any cruise missile capable of traveling 300km which is why almost all air launched cruise missiles have an official range of 300km. Big question is 300km from where? If it’s being fired at near super sonic speed from a typhoon at over 40,000 ft it will go further for sure.

          • Launch speed and altitude doesn’t really matter for cruise missiles which descend down to cruising altitude and remain under their own engine power for the entirety of their flight. In fact, there may be issues with launching a weapon designed for a subsonic flight envelope at higher speeds.

    • I don’t think it’s realistic to suggest that Ukraine could push the Russian military back to the border without at any point hitting targets behind the border (fuel and ammunition stores for example), so I’d say we’re already committed.

      • Taking out logistical stores heading for use on Ukrainian DPR and LPR territory, is one thing. But striking what is actually part of Russia’s nuclear deterrent force is something completely different. Just officially mentioning it is walking a knife edge. It’s something Putin would do, not HM Gov.
        I agree that it is unrealistic to hope Ukraine can take back all of the disputed territory without neutralising battlefield assets just over the Russian border. The two things are completely different.

    • hi Paul 42 agree arming ukraine with western tech to attack russian soil is an escalation 1. western tech more accurate less collateral damage. 2. russia gets free pass to attack a neighbor from home soil.

      • I think it’s an escalation we should make, personally. I don’t think Russia is really in a position to respond despite the bluster of the Kremlin. If we limit the number of missiles we give Ukraine then we can see how they use them first (i.e. to consistently hit military targets only which I am sure that is what they would restrict themselves to.), before handing over more. Ukraine has every right to take the war to Russia when it is militarily necessary to do so, and with the (likely) small number of future long range missiles they would get from the West they are highly unlikely to waste them on apartment blocks like the Russians are doing. A few precise hits on logistics hubs/bridges/railway junctions and ammo/fuel dumps etc would make a big difference on the battlefield.

    • “but attacks on Russia using Western weapons is a potentially dangerous road to go down.”

      I agree. The west needs to be careful. Ukrainian weapons can, and have, hit the Russians across the border. Not western ones AFAIK.

      • Daniele, just gaming this, nato made weapons cannot land on russian soil to prevent escalation of war. this condemns ukraine to perpetual threat of bombardment from russian soil. maybe assist ukraine to develop their own long range options plausible deniability by west. what would come to mind however is the insanity of the iran – contra affair not exactly comparable but seeking to do something that cannot be publicly stated.

        • To be honest Simon the only way to prevent Ukraine from perpetual risk from Russia after the present war ends is as follows:

          1) NATO enforces a de militarised zone between Russian and Ukraine..the risk here is that we end up with a NATO Russian war and a humanity ending strategic exchange.
          2) NATO accepts Ukraine as a member and dares russia to break any peace. With the same inherent risk as 1 but reduced as there will be very clear lines and Russian has never pushed NATO so far as to invade or attack a member.
          3) Putin is humiliating and russia removes him as leader and we get a rapprochement with the west…possible and the best possible outcome for the future of Ukraine.
          4) make Ukraine a nuclear armed state
          5) destroy Russia geopolitically ( essentially using a Cold War approach of isolate and reduce).

          • Unfortunately Ukraine is one of only 2 nations to unilaterally disarm a Nuclear capacity. And it is Treaty bound to stay that way, if Ukraine gained. Nuclear capability it would breach non proliferation agreements and that really would be very, very bad
            .
            Following the break up of the CSR in 1991, Ukraine declared independence and due to the existing basing and manufacturing of Bombers, IRBM and ICBM was suddenly the 3rd largest Nuclear Power.
            Ukraine was broke, newly independent, unstable and riddled with corruption so to avoid those weapons being proliferated the U.K, Russia, Ukraine and USA signed the Budapest Memorandum, which was later ratified by China and France.

            In exchange for completely divesting itself of Nuclear weapons, delivery systems and production of Weapons Grade Materials etc. Ukraine received Western aid and assurances of the integrity of its borders by all parties (including Russia).

            Unfortunately an assurance isn’t the same as a Guarantee if the wording had been different perhaps this conflict would never have happened.

            IMHO Ukraine shouldn’t be admitted to NATO, Russia should be pushed back to the pre 2014 borders (except Crimea) and negotiate a peace deal based on the existing memorandum but guaranteed by Russia, China and NATO.

          • I’m saying that based on History and the ethnic makeup they do actually have a valid argument about Crimea being part of Russia. The only reason it is part of Ukraine is that in 1954 Khrushchev moved it from the Russian SSR to the Ukraine for admin reasons which it had never been part of.
            It moved from one SSR to another and no-one seems to have ever thought the USSR might collapse.
            Russia took the Crimea from the Ottoman Empire in 1783 as it was largely Christian Orthodox.
            One way or another at the end of this war there needs to be a negotiated Peace and acknowledging the obvious may ensure that it lasts.
            But I would try and swap the concession for another geographical Blip Kaliningrad.
            But back an agreement up with rebuilding the Ukraine and ensuring they are either a part of NATO or their borders are recognised and guaranteed by all the 5 UN Security Council members including Russia and China.

      • Agree, there is an issue here that it re-enforces the dialogue of Putin that NATO is at war with Russia and using Ukraine as a proxy, this could strengthen Putin hold on Russia and In true the only way Ukraine will ever be safe and a peace negotiated that guarantees the integrity of Ukraines boarders to pre 2014 is if Putin is removed from office. I agree that we do not want western weapon systems used to attack Russian soil. There are still plenty of soviet based systems around the world that can do that….so ensure the advanced western systems are used to defeat Russia on Ukrainian soil and if Ukraine needs to undertake any interdiction of forces on Russian soil ensure they use soviet based systems to do that.

        • Yes, it’s playing right into his hands, so many older Russians seem brainwashed by Kremlin nonsense as it is without reinforcing the narrative.

          NATO, tread carefully.

    • Brimestone was air launched and now is ground launched.

      Never under estimate Heath Robinsons ability to bodge together a ground launched Storm Shadow.

  3. We need to be careful: Russia has stated,long before the current attack on Ukraine,that it would regard any long range missile targeted at its territory as nuclear armed. Simply they would not wait to see if it was but assume so and act accordingly. If Ukraine were to launch Storm Shadow/Scalp hundreds of miles into Russia, the launch on warning doctrine would mean nuclear response against Ukraine or any target presumed to have launched against Russia.
    Any such attacks against Russia would also play into the hands of the thugs in the Kremlin presenting this war as a defensive struggle.

    • Ukraine has already hit Russian territory several times with long range missiles, besides which Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons anyway. Russia is extremely unlikely to directly confront NATO given the degraded state of it’s armed forces. It’s also worth remembering that any targets in Ukraine are not on Russian territory anyway.

        • Near the beginning of the war they used Tochka-U, which are tactical ballistic missiles which can carry nuclear warheads, to hit Russian airbases in Russia. The dividing line between cruise missiles and drones is increasingly obscure – The Tu-141 which the Ukrainians have used several times are turbojet powered drones with a warhead and capable of hitting targets at 1000 km. Kind of hard to separate them from cruise missiles I think. They are lacking only the precision of modern weapons.

        • The drone(s) they used are indistinguishable from a cruise missile as far as I can see especially after they have been modified with targeting upgrades. But they are Soviet, very different certainly if NATO missiles are used and very dangerous. Help them create long range missiles by all means (with care) and supply such weapons that can target occupied territories but no way should a situation occur (as frustrating as it is) where western missiles target Russia would do far more damage and danger than it could actually inflict. Far better to expand asap the anti missile defences to nullify the Russian strikes and enable the ability to hit Russian ships further out to restrict their ability to strike.

      • The biggest risk is how Russia might respond against Ukraine. The Kremlin knows Ukraine has given up its USSR era nuclear weapons. But it would be easy for Russia to use a long range missile attack on its territory as a reason to “retaliate” with a nuclear weapon claiming it could not know what the West had supplied to Ukraine.
        By supplying Ukraine with the best defensive weapons, we not only ensure the gradual attrition of Russian forces but also undermine the Kremlin claim that it is engaged in self defence.

        • Russia knows that the use of even a single tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine would alienate it from all those nations that have stayed neutral over the war. And it knows now that NATO would respond to such an act, and Russia knows it cannot withstand NATO.

          • Don’t worry, he is desperate to seek legitimacy, and will say anything which would appear threatening to the West. In fact the use of a tactical nuke by the Russians would show that they have just admitted they cannot win in Ukraine. And, as you have said, they cannot win against NATO, no matter what the troll farm squad sheep spout.

      • Not if they nuke a Ukrainian city in accordance with their published doctrine. I think the leadership in Kyiv is bright enough to calculate the risk.

        • In fact Zelensky would accept a nuclear strike against Ukraine, as it would bring the world behind Ukraine, and give NATO the “go” to escalate and remove any further threat.

      • The statement made by Russian military leadership in 2020 that it would assume any ballistic missile targeted at it was nuclear is not unreasonable. Would the USA wait to see if inbound missiles are not nuclear before responding? I think not. For the MAD doctrine to work, clarity about what might trigger all out nuclear exchange is crucial. Neither side wants that to happen by mistake.
        The Russian statement went further by warning that non ballistic attacks on its critical military infrastructure might also result in a nuclear response.
        Given the massive miscalculation of easy success made by Putin in his attack on Ukraine, the regime’s history of murder at home and abroad, its evident paranoia and its willingness to kill thousands of civilians, it is not unlikely that a long range strike into Russia might provoke use of tactical nuclear warheads in retaliation.
        Calling the bluff of someone whose grip on reality seems to be tenuous is neither sensible nor necessary.

        • is this the fine line, attack mother russia so long as it is a system that is non-nuke capable, can’t be construed as a nuke attack. avoid deep strikes into russia without very good reason including and no targeting of russian nuke assets.

        • In which case why hasn’t Russia used nuclear weapons against Ukraine? Since the start of the war Ukraine has, and continued to use, ballistic missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Obviously they carried conventional warheads, but how come the Russians didn’t immediately respond with a nuclear salvo instead of waiting, as per their stated doctrine?
          Simple answer is that they were b@ll-sh@tying as per usual.
          Can’t believe you fell for it.

          A long range strike would not result in a tactical nuclear response. Ukraine has already attacked airbases near Moscow with no such response.

          • It looks as though the Pentagon ” have fallen for it” too. They have turned down Ukr request for 200 mile range ATACMS ,judging it unnecessary and potentially escalatory.
            No one,including you, can know what the madmen in the Kremlin might do. But the strongest reason not to supply such weapons is that they won’t achieve much. In reality, the Russian attack has already failed. Continued supply of PGMs and other tactical weaponry will ensure any further attacks will also fail.

          • Except he’s no madman, if you consider him as such then you limit your actions. Just evil.
            I do know he won’t do anything that can lead to his certain death, and escalating to nuclear weapons would guarantee that.

        • Anyone who doubts potential Russian response should read at least the executive summary of the all sources intelligence report for Able Archer 83. Possibly the closest to a strategic exchange since the Cuban missile crisis, and all based on misinterpretations of wargaming by phlegmatic Soviets, not an apparently unmedicated paranoid delusional dictator. Gentlemen, really advocate some degree of caution in poking a bear w/ a stick when in his den. Any cornered animal is liable to turn and lash out w/ fury, w/ the net result of a smoking hole where the Northern hemisphere used to be…

  4. Sell the Ukrainian’s the export version of Storm Shadow with the limited range and stop fucking about. By the end of the year the Russian’s will have gotten better at dispersion and protecting key infrastructure and it will all be less effective.

  5. We should have supplied Ukraine with long range weapons a while ago – giving them the ability to hit airfields and military sites involved in a hostile and genocidal war against them.

  6. Providing weapons for Ukraine to defend itself and even hit Russian position close to its border is one thing. Hitting targets deep within Russia with NATO given weapons is on another level. Russia would go from the offender to self defense vs NATO.

    Proxy wars are nothing new, ie. Russia did give weapons to N. Korea and N. Vietnam, but none were used to hit mainland USA

    Probably smarter if Ukraine used/developped its own weapons for deep strikes within Russia. Plus I am not convinced that hitting deep within Russia would end this conflict. Russia is a big country and can always relocate manufacturing as it did in WW2 reducing the effect of deep strikes with regards to Russia’s capacity to wage war. Furthermore and more importantly, it could galvanize Russian public opinion drastically and prolong this conflict, if not enlarge it.

    Unfortunately there is no light at the end of this tunnel in the short term. I am convinced that this can only stop once the Russian people have had enough. To tha end, body bags that keep coming from the front is more effective than deep strikes. But that takes time. It took a long time for US to vacate Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, it will likely be the same for this war.

    My 2 cents

    • As revealed recently, during the Korean War a USN pilot shot down 4 Soviet Air Force MiG-15s that were heading directly towards his carrier group. A direct US v USSR clash far beyond a proxy.
      It didn’t start WW3.

      Russia is using weapons supplied by Iran to hit deep within Ukraine. You don’t see Ukraine attacking Iran.

      Putin and his henchmen will bluster and threaten as much as possible to frighten the West into inaction. We’d be fools to believe any of it.

      The big difference with regard to manufacturing is that manufacturing processes and products are far more technically complex than they were during WW2. Russia will undoubtedly be using foreign machinery or machinery using foreign parts that, due to Western sanctions, it won’t be able to replace easily.

      The red-lines to Ukraine should be;
      • it’s forces should not cross the pre-2014 border into Russia to occupy territory, no matter he briefly
      • no deliberate targeting of civilians in Russia.
      I believe Ukraine has previously indicated it has no intention to cross either of these.

      Hitting any targets across the border, fine.
      Launching raids across the border, fine.

    • hi Lordtempler, the west has some shame with those wars, putin adds this war, flatten ukraine and make it a failed state causing an exodus of the population, grab mineral wealth. a non compliant ukraine cannot be seen to be prosper. china looks on weighing up taiwan

  7. Get them provided, as long as they are only used on military targets its fair game as far as I’m concerned. Take out threats at their source.

  8. This seems to me to be a step too far, giving weapons to stop and evict the Russians is one thing but offensive deep strike with made in U.K. on them !
    So a U.K. built Storm Shadow hits a Russian Target in Russia, they will not be fused who pulled the trigger, they have to be seen to retaliate somehow.
    If there is one thing we know about Putin is he takes Face and reputation very seriously and holds grudges.
    Next thing is he fires a couple of Kalibr Cruise Missiles at the 2 Ukrainian sweepers training off the Scottish coast. They are pretty accurate and as they demonstrated in Syria they actually work.
    No damage to U.K property and we have absolutely no defence and no reason to invoke article 5.

    • Bit of fine line to tread isn’t it? I think first up there’s got to be a lot less publicity of what’s been sent over. The West must its intent firm and a little bit less publicity of what we’re sending to Ukraine through the media. It must be bloody awful on the ground but good on the UK and others giving what they have. Hope the Ukrainian forces can truly muscle up and push and shove the Russian’s back into the Asov and hopefully recapture their Mariupol to Crimea territory, then strengthen its borders! I’ve mentioned this before, but Ukraine may need to make a new-wider channel through the north Crimea to bypass the Kerch Bridge channel.
      Hold the UK restocks its forces quickly replacing all our giveaways and hopefully come out of this bigger, better, stronger and sharper! Australia 🇦🇺 🇬🇧 🇺🇦

    • I think the answer is simple. Any Russian forces involved in the prosecution of war against Ukraine are fair game for conventional attack by Ukraine using whatever conventional weapons Ukraine is provided with. ….in whatever form that conventional attack comes.

      It’s Russian choice re what forces they utilise or mobilise into the region.

      Russian invasion was the escalation.

      P

  10. There’s no need to given advanced warning to Russia and the World on this! Let the missiles do the talking! Do the Russian’s let Ukraine know up front what they’re firing at them? No! Why then are we doing it!? Stupid stuff!

  11. Ploughed my way through that list and I do want to query a few bits.
    Heavy lift cargo drones.? I know the RN has been trialing some but didn’t know we had any operational ?.
    Six mine-hunting UUVs would these be the new ones or old kit off the Sandowns ?
    Loitering munitions and loitering anti tank munitions ? Any ideas.

    Can anyone throw some light on these ?

    • The drones were 10 flagged as Malloy T150s last May-June. 65kg load 70km range roughly.

      The ones the RM were playing with in autumn 2020.

      Good for resupply, perhaps for some kit forces where roads are dodgy, or across water. I’d also guess they were given thinking the UA would find creative things to do with them.

      Minehunting UAVs seem to be the existing whatever-they-are not the new Thales kit. Remus 100? (surmising). Perhaps the new stuff means we can let them go, though supplying kit from the Sandowns would make sense since the ships themselves are stuck here until the Bosporus reopens to warships.

      Loitering munitions – I thought RN had bought Switchblade, but I have seen no specific reports wrt Ukraine.

      Best I can do.

      (Links removed to circumvent Mary Poppins !)

  12. I do believe that we should be giving the Ukraine what it needs and if proof was needed about Russia’s response then look at what happened when the Moskva went down a reportedly nuclear armed vessel the Russian people are still being told it was due to a fire on board and bad seamanship by its crew. My only concern is are we replacing the kit that we are sending to the Ukraine and if so how long will it take.

  13. If Russia is near-apopletic about our supplying tanks with a typical gun range of about 3km, then imagine the response about the West supplying missiles that can reach targets deep inside Russia. Let us do it!
    What a can of worms Putin opened a year ago.

  14. That looks to me like a classic not-an-answer-please-go-away from Baroness Goldie, and I do wonder if George is slightly overplaying a Cloud of Unknowing hiding we-know-not-what.

    Sir Humphrey would be proud.

    I’d say they have perhaps said to UA “follow international law we trust you”, and not GEO-fenced it like the US did with at least one of their systems.

    I can’t see too many issues with going for Russian military targets with UK provided kit, as long as nuclear or nuclear-capable facilities are not targeted. But then UA has already shown it can target strategic bombers with drones beyond the range of aiui our most capable missiles.

    Were we going to help with that it may make more sense to support a UA drone factory, since their capacity seems very limited.

    Russia did launch their invasion from bases in both Russia and Belarus.

    But I’m speculating and I’m not that knowledgeable.

  15. I believe Typhoon F1 can launch Storm Shadow as it is a simple fire and forget weapon. We could give Ukraine just 4 to 8 F1s quite easily and they could then just use them to launch deep strike missions.

  16. Excellent news indeed. Let’s give Ukraine everything they need. Russia is intent on destroying as much of Ukraine as they can. It’ll be great to see Ukraine have the weaponry to destroy targets in Russia. Also great to see the UK government has the balls to ignore the Russian cries of escalation. It’s just a shame the other so called major players, such as the US and Germany, constantly worrying about what Putin might do. What can he do. The only threat he has is nuclear weapons. The second he uses one, Russia will be totally destroyed. Putin wants to be the boss not dead. We have to call his bluff. I would love to know what missiles we would send though.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here