What can Ukraine glean from Iran’s attack on Israel — opinion

Why didn’t the coalition of Western countries let a single Iranian missile fall on Israel, while merely observing Russian missiles striking Ukraine for two years? The answer is rather complex.

So, what did the Ukrainians learn from the results of Iran’s attack on Israel?

First, the aviation of NATO member states (the Unites States, the UK, and France) can scramble to protect the airspace of a state that isn’t a NATO member, including outside this state’s airspace, and shoot down everything that violates it.

Second, neighbors of a non-NATO state can also take an active part in shooting down missiles and drones flying at their neighbor, instead of counting the seconds these missiles and drones stay in their own airspace.

Third, it actually works. If the air force of many powerful states works together, almost everything that flies is shot down. And there’s no need to “raise money” for Patriot or other air defense systems, to train personnel for this for months. They just arrive, intercept, and fly away.

Of course, all Ukrainians began to ask themselves: why is this not possible in the case of Ukraine, and every day we’re forced to keep the tally of our citizens killed by Russian missile attacks?

The most common version is that “because Russia presents a nuclear treat, and the West is very afraid of that.”

Of course, this version is not devoid of meaning, but it still seems to me personally to be only tangential to the actual reasons.

In general, they’ve been trying to convince us for more than two years that they cannot do anything for us, because they’re “terribly afraid of a nuclear war with Russia.” And frankly, it’s not convincing.

Okay, let’s assume that [Russian dictator Vladimir] Putin really starts threatening everyone with a nuclear apocalypse at every opportunity, and everyone buys it. Apocalypse in response to any attempt to give Ukraine a couple of old missiles, a dozen old planes, and a few dozen tanks, for example.

If Putin really is a psycho who would annihilate humanity because Ukraine was given a few dozen old tanks, the West itself has only one thing to do — finding ways to eliminate him. Because he may start the apocalypse tomorrow since he’s in a bad mood due to digestive problems. But no one is looking for ways to eliminate the psychopath. Meaning, they don’t consider him to be that dangerous.

Next, the attack on Israel once again showed that the U.S. intelligence services know everything. They knew when the [Russian] invasion of Ukraine would begin, when the terrorist attack in Crocus [City Hall outside Moscow] would take place, when Iran would launch missiles at Israel. Do you think that if Putin decided to launch a nuclear attack on them, they wouldn’t know about it? With deployment sites and how to hit them all? Of course, they would know.

So, the problem isn’t that someone is terribly afraid of a nuclear strike.

First, in the case of Ukraine, it’s simply easier for them to do nothing. Obviously, on Feb. 24, 2022, they were quite ready to accept that Ukraine would soon no longer exist. Perhaps this thought didn’t bring them joy, but it certainly didn’t seem tragic. It simply won’t exist. So, what were they to do about it? To deploy aviation, troops, to waste time, money, resources... For what?

Here, in my opinion, it’s necessary to explain a little about escalation and de-escalation, which, in the context of interaction with the West, we’re used to joking about. When a representative of the U.S. State Department tells us something about the “threat of escalation,” we’re outraged. Like, what kind of “escalation”? How much more can things escalate? Moscow is already throwing everything it has at us, violating all norms and rules, committing genocide... But this is from our point of view. For U.S. officials, “escalation” means creating problems for the United States. If Ukrainians die quietly, obviously it’s not “escalation.” But if in response other Ukrainians destroy Russian oil refineries..., that is definitely an “escalation” because it will create problems for the United States: fluctuations in fuel prices. It’s necessary to worry about their stability in the United States.

If, for example, Russia seizes Kyiv now (right now, not in 2022), this will, of course, be an escalation because of refugees, destruction... But the Ukrainian military offensive can also be an “escalation,” so it’s better to avoid all that.

So, they just didn’t want and don’t want to “escalate.” And they’re very offended by [French President Emmanuel] Macron when he only mentions a possible “escalation.” Why would he do that? Let things go on as they are. It might be easier. Because if you intervene, many new “variables” will appear, presenting new risks and challenges.

Secondly, it’s obvious that in the case of Iran, Western politicians don’t have much hope for a possible revival of full-fledged economic relations with them. Russia is another case. Their almost limitless natural resources, and the West’s eternal hope for another “perestroika.” What if tomorrow everything changes there, and it’s possible to do profitable business again? Moreover, their elite aren’t some “communists” or religious fanatics. They’re “normal” kleptocrats. Why not agree with them, at some point later? Why close such opportunities now?

Why is everything different with Israel? There are many factors, of course. This is both a powerful [Israeli] lobby in the Unites States, which would obviously create many problems for the current U.S. administration if it abandoned Israel, and bilateral economic ties, including in military industry. But there’s one interesting point that no one paid attention to. Anyone who knows the history of Israeli-U.S. relations understands they’ve never been trouble-free, and were accompanied by tense situations, because everyone had their own view of the problem. It’s the same now. Washington is putting pressure on Israel to halt the military operation in the Gaza Strip, for example.

But this doesn’t prevent Washington from sending aircraft to shoot down missiles over Israel. Although potentially this is also a “source of escalation”? Saudi Arabia is nearby, an important oil source. The region itself is explosive. 

But what the United States knows clearly is that if something flies and reaches Israel, explodes, and kills someone, Israel will certainly respond. They’ll answer as bloody as possible, no matter how much you try to calm them down. And what’s important, they have the resources for a response like that. And now “escalation” turns into “extraordinary escalation.” The only way to prevent that is to not let anything fall on the Israelis. So, the United States and its allies have achieved exactly that.

As a result, [U.S. President Joe] Biden and [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu had a chat. The U.S. president convinced the Israeli PM not to retaliate against Iran, since the Iranian attack was repulsed successfully. And Netanyahu was forced to accept this argument. Thus, by launching its aviation, the United Stated achieved “de-escalation,” and, apparently, they’re very pleased with it. This illustrates their thinking.

When nuclear weapons were taken away from us, the Americans did it precisely to prevent “escalation.” They understood the Russians would try to reclaim Ukraine one day. If Ukraine were a nuclear power, it would create big problems for the United States. It would be necessary to urgently try to settle the situation, to hold immediate negotiations with the participation of global leaders. Perhaps even to deploy their own troops to prevent the worst from happening. But now, the Russian attack on a nuclear-free Ukraine is just an excuse to stock up on popcorn and watch.

Of course, if the United States knew that in response to the destruction of the Ukrainian energy industry, Ukraine would, for example, attack Russia’s oil and gas industry, they would have thought differently about how to properly support Kyiv.

This doesn’t mean they would have rushed to defend Ukraine. They would have tried to sway and intimidate people who could make similar decisions in Ukraine. After all, it works in most cases. But if they knew that Ukraine can and has the will to strike symmetrically in response to strikes on itself, they would have definitely started seriously considering preventing [Russian] attacks on Ukraine.

The beginning of Ukraine’s strikes on Russian refineries is, to a large extent, a turning point in our history. More precisely, not yet a turning point, but could potentially become such. Undermining the enemy’s economy with the potential to affect the world economy is no joke, it’s an argument that can and should be developed.

More drones, more weapons, more courage in their use is a course of action that can be fruitful. It may finally make the United States seriously worry about Ukraine. Of course, now we need to accumulate forces, hold our ground.

This is the only way to get on a path that will eventually bring some tangible results, while listening to advice from the West isn’t necessary at all. It’s better to look at their history and learn from it.

We’re bringing the voice of Ukraine to the world. Support us with a one-time donation, or become a Patron!

Read the original article on The New Voice of Ukraine