Missiles for an acceptable peace: the decision by France and the United Kingdom

The decision to authorise Zelensky to design and build cruise missiles – whilst there is still no air defence or anti-ballistic missile system capable of containing Russia’s indiscriminate bombardments – could mark a decisive turning point towards negotiations and an acceptable peace. Why the war in Ukraine has been so long and gruelling is, despite doubts and uncertainties – as always – quite clear to anyone capable of thinking for themselves, provided they are able to do so. For the first three years, it was a unilateral war waged by a great power that had survived its imperial and Soviet glory days only mediocrely, yet remained strong thanks to its nuclear arsenal and its vast, bi-continental expanse – an aggression fuelled by illusions, unleashed against a marginal country yet one rich in passion and the courage to endure suffering in defence of its independence. As the fighting vanguard of Europe and the West, Ukraine has for three years been defended against the Eurasian colossus and its powerful alliances. Money, shelter for millions of refugees, weapons and ammunition, sanctions against the enemy.

This continued until the start of Trump’s second term, which was clearly the other side (of collusion) of Vladimir Putin, and as such it worked – and continues to work – to a certain extent, albeit imperfectly. But the golden age of major sanctions against Moscow and the unity of the NATO bloc, led by old Joe Biden, with the solidarity trains and the historic photo of Macron, Draghi and Scholz, was characterised – and this is why the war has tended to become endless – by the so-called defensive or de-escalation strategy that prevented Ukraine from attempting a genuine counter-offensive to restore the balance of power, striking at Russia’s energy sector and economy beyond its borders, with targets as far as nearly two thousand kilometres from the conventional front line. The Kursk operation, an impossible prototype of a territorial conquest in Russia, carried the symbolic value of a wake-up call – one that went unheeded. For three long years, we chose to accept a challenge to which no genuine response – one based on effectiveness – was permitted. Faced with the special operation aimed at conquering and annihilating Ukrainian – and therefore European and democratic – identity, we were to limit ourselves solely to defence without crossing the enemy’s border, which was and remains utter nonsense.

Putin was waging the war, even whilst concealing it; we were confined to pure territorial defence and a financial counter-offensive. The Ukrainians, with limited technological resources – some of which evade the ambiguous regulations of the US federal government, as mandated – began in the second half of 2025 and in 2026 to mount a serious counter-offensive, striking refineries and shopping centres and demonstrating the tactical value of long-range drone warfare, thereby increasing Russian insecurity as well as inflation and energy shortages. At the height of their weakness – with a Trump-style offensive in Anchorage and the Oval Office, corruption investigations and attempts to undermine the Commander-in-Chief – they managed to resolve to fight back and found a way to do so. Now comes the Franco-British decision on long-range missiles. It is very late in the day, but the context is sufficiently threatening for Moscow, which is seeking redemption through the ruthlessness of urban bombardments and hybrid warfare against the West, as a means of open intimidation. Quoted by Paolo Forcellini, the historian Peter Frankopan – who knows world history starting from Eurasia and has recounted it well – warned in "Foreign Policy": “We are paying very close attention to the desperate moves of a man who is drowning.”