By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following reports of a Russian ICBM launch targeting Dnipro, Ukraine, EU officials have expressed serious concern. The use of such a weapon, if confirmed, would represent a significant escalation of the conflict and a potential qualitative shift in the war. While Ukraine claims a high degree of certainty, Western officials remain cautious, with some suggesting the missile may have been a conventional ballistic missile. The incident comes amid heightened tensions, following recent U.S. authorization of Ukrainian strikes within Russia and Russia’s updated nuclear policy.
Read the original article here
A Russian ICBM strike would be a clear escalation, the EU asserts. This isn’t some hypothetical scenario; it’s a stark reality, and the lack of decisive action is deeply concerning. The sheer act of launching an ICBM changes the rules of engagement, potentially legitimizing retaliatory strikes on Russian missile sites and storage facilities. The world seems to be sleepwalking into a crisis, and the hesitancy to take significant action is baffling.
The EU’s response feels inadequate, bordering on pathetic. Statements of “deep concern” and strongly worded condemnations ring hollow in the face of such a blatant act of aggression. The inaction begs the question: what threshold of escalation must be reached before a meaningful response is considered? What good are strongly worded letters when lives are at stake? The repeated use of the conditional tense — “would be” an escalation — when the event has already occurred is maddening.
It’s not just the immediate threat of an ICBM strike. The trajectory of this conflict paints a grim picture. Each escalation raises the stakes, bringing the world closer to a potential nuclear confrontation. And yet, the current response is akin to watching a slow-motion train wreck, with each passing day bringing the impact closer. This is a disturbing parallel to historical appeasement policies, where inaction emboldens aggressors and inevitably leads to larger conflicts.
The international community’s response so far lacks the necessary force. There’s a sense of paralysis, a reluctance to act decisively. This hesitance, whether driven by fear of nuclear escalation or political calculations, is dangerous and shortsighted. While the likelihood of full-scale nuclear war might be low, the risk is ever-present. It seems we’re allowing ourselves to become trapped in a cycle of escalating threats, where each act of aggression elicits only feeble protests.
The idea that a response should only come after a nuclear strike is horrifying. We should not wait until things are irrevocably damaged. A more proactive, preventative strategy is necessary. This means strengthening Ukraine’s defenses significantly, possibly through increased military aid and even deploying air defense units under a NATO or EU umbrella. The latter would protect civilians and infrastructure, while simultaneously raising the stakes for Russia. A clear line should be drawn. Crossing it should trigger swift and robust retaliation.
The argument that supplying Ukraine with more advanced weapons will escalate the conflict is flawed. Russia initiated the escalation with its invasion. Ukraine’s defense is not an escalation; it’s a response to unprovoked aggression. Furthermore, a strong, well-equipped Ukraine is less likely to be targeted. A weaker, poorly-armed Ukraine only invites further aggression. Russia would not have invaded a strong Ukraine, and that truth should inform the strategy of the international community.
Ignoring the situation only encourages further aggression. Putin’s actions are those of a bully who tests boundaries and escalates when met with weak responses. He must be countered decisively, showing that aggression will not be tolerated. Silence is perceived as agreement, and in this dangerous game of geopolitical brinkmanship, silence is deadly. The current approach only reinforces the perception that the international community is unprepared and unwilling to effectively challenge Putin’s increasingly reckless behavior. The longer we wait, the higher the cost will be. A bold and decisive response is not only necessary, it is urgent.