NATO Must Militarily Intervene Against Russian Attacks to Stop Putin's Forever War in Ukraine
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/simontisdall. "Putin would rather keep killing than admit he’s lost. As a winter of misery looms in Ukraine, Nato must step in | Simon Tisdall | The Guardian." September 13, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author argues that Putin is deliberately prolonging the war by bombing civilians because he won't admit Russia is losing, and that Western half-heartedness (especially under Trump) has left Ukraine dangerously exposed. He concludes that NATO needs to stop just watching and instead threaten or carry out strikes on Russian missile and drone launch sites to force Putin to stop the attacks.
Conclusion
NATO must switch to an offensive posture, threaten and carry out strikes on Russian drone and missile launch sites, and force Putin to back down, rather than continuing to sit on the sidelines.
Premises
- Russia, failing militarily on the battlefield, has escalated systematic daily attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure (homes, hospitals, food supply, power and water systems), constituting an intolerable, ongoing crime against humanity
- Putin is not pursuing a genuine peace but is prolonging the war because he refuses to admit defeat, despite domestic pressure and battlefield failure
- Western (particularly US) ambivalence and unreliability—Biden's inconsistent support, Trump's reduction of weapons and interceptor production, and Trump's favoritism toward Putin—have left Ukraine defenseless against escalating air attacks
- There is a viable basis for a negotiated settlement (majority support for a ceasefire with security guarantees) that is being squandered due to lack of serious, impartial international mediation
- Authoritarian leaders like Putin ignore public opinion and international law, and impunity for war crimes perpetuates the conflict
- Historical patterns show that forever wars (Ukraine, Gaza, Iran) are caused by leaders who lie, escalate, and evade accountability, and only external pressure/legal frameworks can check them
- Continued inaction morally implicates Western democracies as complicit in the mounting civilian toll
Assumptions
- NATO military intervention (strikes on Russian launch sites) would actually deter or degrade Russia's capacity to attack civilians rather than escalate the conflict further
- NATO/Western democracies have both the legal right and practical capability to strike Russian territory or assets without triggering wider war (including nuclear escalation)
- Putin's calculus can be changed by a credible threat of NATO strikes, rather than hardening his resolve
- The moral imperative to stop civilian suffering outweighs the risks of direct NATO-Russia confrontation
- Western unity and political will for such an escalation can be achieved despite Trump's demonstrated reluctance
- Ending the war via increased military pressure is more effective than diplomatic/legal pressure alone