Liz Truss: Britain to Meet Russian Incursion With a Really “Strong” Retreat
Will be "met with strength" aka a hasty extraction to Poland
“Any Russian incursion would be a massive strategic mistake and would be met with strength, including coordinated sanctions with our allies to impose severe cost’s on Russia’s interests and economy. The UK’s support for Ukraine is unwavering.”
But then the British Defense Ministry has also explained that the moment that the Russian troops cross the border, the British military will speedily withdraw from the country:
Most of the British force is stationed at Yavoriv and these will drive to the Polish border a short distance away, sources say.
A small team of staff officers in the capital Kiev will also head for the border, while a maritime training cadre in Odessa is in the UK for Christmas.
That’s very interesting. So the “strong” British reply will include getting the hell out of Dodge. But don’t worry, it will be a very “strong” reply indeed. The “strongest” withdrawal in the history of strong withdrawals.
Perhaps London has a different definition of “unwavering” and “met with strength”?
It’s also comical how this summer when there was no fear of any Russian invasion Britain sailed a warship from Ukraine’s Odessa within 12 nautical miles of Russia’s Sevastopol, but now that London actually fears that the Russians may be coming they are planning a speedy retreat.
Isn’t that really a microcosm of the whole situation? Kiev allows NATO to use Ukrainian soil for provocations against Russia and when this makes Ukraine a target for Moscow then NATO is nowhere to be found.
Kiev does so because the politicians ruling it bolster their nationalist credentials by pretending that eventually NATO can be embroiled into its civil war against rebel Donbass, and that NATO can deliver the win against Russian intervention that Ukraine alone can not.
Instead of pulling Kiev’s chestnuts out of the fire for it, the West is happy to take every opportunity offered up by Ukraine to provoke Russia and pour gasoline on fire but has no intention of standing and fighting.
In essence, Ukraine wants NATO to fight Russia (while Ukraine itself happily keeps exporting Russian gas), while NATO just wants to provoke Russia and doesn’t at all mind if Ukraine and Russia fight.
NATO provoking Russia around Ukraine while having no intention of defending Ukraine is in very poor taste — but it is also probably in NATO’s interest. Why wouldn’t NATO hail a fratricidal war between East Slavs? Especially one it can influence from the outside but doesn’t have to enter itself.
The real lack of wisdom isn’t found in NATO capitals but in Kiev itself. If Ukraine does not have the capability to repulse Russia, and if NATO won’t do it for her — then how does it make sense to keep offering Ukraine as a platform for NATO provocations against Russia? (Especially since Moscow offered a way to get Donbass back peacefully and Crimea was never Ukrainian anyway.)
Liz Truss isn’t going to come riding in a tank Ukraine’s rescue. Everybody is smart enough to comprehend that. But if you are a politician in Kiev, with your position uncertain and fortunes oscillating on a weekly basis, then seeing the broad picture is a luxury you can not afford. Instead, you must view any photo-op with NATO, any tie to them, no matter how irksome to Russia, or how substantially irrelevant for Ukraine, as a victory that keeps the super-patriots at bay and gets you through another month. And NATO will be happy to take all it can get, without putting any of its own skin into the game in return.