Ex-Navy Commander: NATO Can't Stop Russian Missiles — SkimNews
Get the Geopolitics newsletter
Daily geopolitics — wars, elections, sanctions, the diplomatic moves that move markets. Free.
- British Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced on August 25 during a Kyiv visit that the UK would give Ukraine classified blueprints to produce SCALP cruise missiles for long-range strikes into Russia, prompting Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova to warn that British military facilities "may become legitimate targets."
- Ukraine's "40-day influence operation" announced by President Zelensky in late June was intended "to force Russians to experience the consequences of the war" ahead of September elections, according to Ukrainian officials familiar with the planning — strikes Russia frames as terrorist attacks on civilians using Western-supplied weapons.
- French President Macron warned that "it's clear that NATO countries will be targeted" by Russia and that Europeans are ready to defend the continent "at the cost of blood if necessary," while Germany announced plans for a €12 billion arsenal of long-range missiles explicitly designed to "deter" Russia.
- Retired Royal Navy Commodore Steve Jermy argued in his article "The Coming War with Russia" that Europe cannot defend against Russian hypersonic or ballistic missiles aimed at weapons-production facilities in Britain, France and Germany, rendering NATO Article 5 "meaningless" if the US — chastened by its Iran experience — stays out.
- Jermy outlined a scenario in which E3 air forces attempting to retaliate with F-35s would take "significant casualties" against what he called the world's most well-practiced air defenses, after which Russia would strike military and energy targets across Britain, France and Germany using the same strategic bombardment capability it has deployed in Ukraine.
Why it matters: Jermy's central claim is that the UK's blueprint decision and Europe's €12 billion missile buildup don't close a deterrence gap but rather mark Britain, France and Germany as exposed targets with no viable military response — making the political rhetoric of "standing at the cost of blood" a posture the three weapons-producing nations cannot actually back up if Article 5 fails and the US declines to join.
Ask SkimNews
