That would indeed help Ukraine. Whether it would be prudent for the UK to escalate its involvement in a non-NATO state’s war against a nuclear-armed great power with much more at stake than us is a different question. https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1381539193411801088

*To be clear, that’s not a “never”. Sometimes ‘bleeding’ an adversary via support to proxies is an effective strategy; the US did it to the Russians in Afghanistan, for example, just as they’ve subsequently done it back to NATO in Afghanistan and the greater Middle East. We...

...also sell plenty of weapons to plenty of “allies” with a less obvious rationale than a European state facing a more powerful adversary (see under: UK Gulf strategy). So maybe supply of ATGMs really is the ‘Goldilocks’ sweet-spot of meaningful support with limited liability...

But, it’s very hard for “here are some missiles” not to become “here are some trainers to help you operate the missiles”, followed by “oh look, the trainers are involved in the fighting”. Also, if we’re going to try to ‘bleed’ an adversary over what they perceive as a vital...

...interest, we can expect them to repay the favour. Maybe Ukraine really is worth that price. But there are substantial costs set against the possible benefits.