London’s weekly The Economist ran an insane editorial Jan. 11, with the following message to Western allies dragging their feet on sending Ukraine the heavy tanks and longer-range missiles it requires to drive out a Russia which “malevolently squats along the vital coastline that provides [Ukraine] sea-access to the outside world.” Those fearing that “if Russia is pushed too far or too fast, its president, Vladimir Putin, could escalate and, in the worst case, even trigger a nuclear war,” should not worry.
“These are not baseless fears,” The Economist concedes. But, “Mr. Putin has been threatening fire and brimstone since the start of the war. On its first day he said: `to anyone who would consider interfering from outside: If you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history.’ Despite these threats, constant Western interference has met with no obvious consequences. Likewise the application of Sweden and Finland to join NATO, which was supposedly a Russian red line until it wasn’t….
“Yielding to Mr. Putin’s nuclear threats today sets up more perilous stand-offs tomorrow.
“The assessment that providing a Marder is much safer than sending in a Leopard is flawed. War is dangerous, but Ukraine needs to finish the job. It should be given the tools it needs.” (https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/01/11/the-west-should-supply-tanks-to-ukraine )
