It's vital that Russians know we could send in UK troops

David Cameron has given the strongest confirmation yet that Ukraine is free to use weapons supplied by Britain to strike into Russia.

- KEIR GILES

During his recent visit to Kyiv, the foreign secretary stated clearly that it was Ukraine’s decision how to use those weapons, and Kyiv “absolutely has the right to strike back at Russia”.

That’s in sharp contrast to the position taken by the United States, which has consistently forbidden Ukraine from using the weapons it supplies to hit targets in Russia itself, and even discouraged Kyiv from doing so using its own home-grown capabilities.

It’s another example of Britain demonstrating that US and German fears over the consequences of supporting Ukraine too enthusiastically are unfounded. It follows Britain repeatedly taking the lead in supplying weapons systems such as long-range missiles or main battle tanks, and showing that the fear of “escalation” that so constrains Washington and Berlin stems from a highly successful Russian con trick.

But that moral authority has been shaken over recent months by Britain’s reluctance to re-equip its own armed forces in the way it is urging other European states to do – and the way grand announcements of defence investment turn out on closer inspection to be both inadequate and deceptive.

This limits the direct military aid the UK can provide. Cameron suggested Britain’s long-term commitment to supporting Ukraine would now be largely financial, since, “We’ve just really emptied all we can in terms of giving equipment.” And sadly, he immediately undermined the effect even of that commitment by once again ruling out the presence of Western troops in Ukraine.