By Matt Underwood Top U.S. Negotiator Warned Europeans That Russia Is Stockpiling Missiles, which brings us to a rather unsettling situation, doesn’t it? The core argument seems to be that Russia is accumulating a large arsenal of missiles, therefore, Ukraine should hasten to accept a less-than-ideal deal. It feels a bit like being told, “The mugger got a bigger knife, so hand over your valuables now.” The logic here appears, to put it mildly, twisted.
Now, consider the implications if this is indeed the strategic thinking from certain corners. It’s almost as if Putin doesn’t need to actually fire his missiles; he’s already getting everything he wants, served on a silver platter. And let’s be frank, that’s not diplomacy.
The warnings, supposedly intended to alert Europeans, appear to have a rather specific subtext. The idea is to quickly settle and surrender, allowing Moscow to rearm without further impediment. But isn’t it more logical to recognize that a cease-fire would only provide the opportunity for Moscow to build an even larger stockpile for the next conflict?
The concerns expressed here delve into the details. The assumption that Russia will slow missile production after a deal seems to be off. The notion that rewarding Russia makes it less dangerous appears to be unsupported. And the argument suggesting a ceasefire as a solution seems particularly short-sighted.
The implications of this kind of “diplomacy” are pretty scary, given that it resembles the appeasement policies of the past. The echoes of such historical events resonate with a disturbing familiarity. It’s almost as if the U.S. is doing Putin’s bidding by spreading fear and propaganda.
There’s the question of motivation. Are these warnings genuine attempts at preventing further conflict? Or are they something else entirely? Is the intention to support Russia and weaken Ukraine? What’s going on? It is hard to trust the information.
If you consider the evidence, the situation is rather complicated. There’s also the question of what these missiles are: old Soviet stockpiles or advanced, precision-guided weaponry? Is the US setting the stage for a new phase? Does the US want Russia to break the truce to attack Europe? The situation feels rigged.
There is a huge amount of support for Ukraine to defend themselves. Europe, in theory, has the capacity to deal with Russia. But it seems they aren’t.
And then there’s the question of what “support” looks like. It is one thing to be generous to the Nordics or the Ukrainians and another to ask those directly affected to make sacrifices.
So, the situation doesn’t really feel like Russia is winning anything. The question is whether Europe is willing to fight Russia. Is it willing to do what it takes? Europe could act more decisively.
The discussion frequently simplifies the situation into a binary: either accept Trump’s plan or directly engage in military conflict. But there is a middle ground. Keeping the support for Ukraine going, keeping up the pressure on Russia, and pushing for a settlement that doesn’t just hand the aggressor everything they want. It is not about American boots on the ground.
The core of the matter remains: support Ukraine, keep up the pressure on Russia, and push for a reasonable settlement. It is not about allowing the aggressor to gain everything they want. The logic is that you should not reward Russia’s invasion, let Putin rearm faster, and then call it peace. Surrendering to Putin doesn’t prevent future wars; it guarantees them. The simplest answer is and has always been, provide Ukraine with mothballed American weapons.
The problem, as with the appeasement policies of the past, is that it sets the stage for future problems. The history seems to repeat itself.