We have sold Ukraine weapons to defend themselves against an unprovoked aggression, Ukraine should decide how they use them. The amounts unfortunately are tiny compared to the Iranian and North Korean missiles being fired at Ukraine everyday.
How would this make us any more at war with Russia than allowing Ukraine to kill Russian soldiers with these weapons and attack parts of Ukraine that Russia's constitution says are actually part of Russia, possibly killing people that Russia says are Russians?
One person's "waging war by proxy" is anothers "helping a country which has been invaded by its neighbour". The "lines" are arbitrary and based on politics. There is no philosophical reason why a line would be drawn here rather than anywhere else, and the same will apply in future.
The UK, and many other countries, are providing military, civilan and financial support to a democracy which has been invaded twice in a decade by a power that is actively hostile to the west. Cutting off military aid to Ukraine would allow a Russian victory. Russia will not stop there.
As a bystander, at school, in the study of 20th century history we had lessons learned on the events leading to WW1 & 2. I asked Copilot whether Corbyn's question was fair - it is - according to Copilot.
The majority of weaponry used by the various islamic terrorist groups that have fought against British military personnel were armed with weapons made by Russia, granted much of it by the Soviet Union but not all. Does that mean that we were at War with the Russian Federation in the 2000's?
Comments
(His profile: Scientist - materials, electrochemistry, chemicals and industrial decarbonisation at Imperial College. London.)