Putin's murder of hospitalised children is enough for NATO to intervene directly

The Times headline: "Children's hospital in ruins after Russia's deadly barrage". The hospital is in Kyiv (the Okhmatdyt Children’s Hospital), the capital of Ukraine.

Note: Putin is already at war with NATO:

Russia is eschewing conventional conflict and instead waging a campaign of sabotage and intimidation across Europe. When and how are we going to respond asks Edward Lucas in The Times

Okhmatdyt Children’s Hospital after the cruise missile hit. Image: BBC.

The hospital suffered extensive damage after a direct hit on its toxicology ward. A video showed the missile hurtling into the building. It was an ordinary Monday until the massive blast. A bone marrow transplant specialist at the hospital said the following: 

"Killing children, killing doctors, killing civilians? This is genocide and Russia is a terrorist state. But why does Russia still have the capabilities to build these rockets? If striking hospitals is a new strategy for them, what should we do next? What should the world do next?"

At least 37 people were killed, including three children, and more than 170 were wounded So what should the world do next?

Putin is allegedly (it very much looks like that as the missile that destroyed this hospital was guided) murdering children in hospital beds. 

He has also murdered through directions to his generals to bomb and shell city centres - apartment blocks - before and killed hundreds of kids and old ladies but this has gone too far. It's totally unacceptable. It is beyond the pale. 

Enough is enough. Can the West in the form of NATO stand by and watch this? Can we accept politicians and generals complaining about the killing of hospital kids but take not action? Can we accept more hollow words from the politicians of the West without real action? More blah, blah, blah? Please enough of empty words. We can do better and must do better. Be braver. Let's steel ourselves.

Direct intervention by NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine would be an act of war against Russia by the West but I don't think the West can look on any more. Day by day we are looking at slaughter. The slaughter of innocents. There must come a time and I would argue that this is the time to intervene directly. It would be the morally right thing to do. 

Putin has threatened nuclear war if NATO intervenes but he's bluffing. I know it's a risk but we have to take risks sometime. We have to do the right thing and call the bluff of a bully/terrorist/murderer. It's time to walk the walk rather than talk the talk. It's time for direct action.

Russia denied responsibility for the hospital strike, saying it does not attack civilian targets in Ukraine. A Russian Defence Ministry statement blamed a Ukrainian air defence missile for partially destroying the hospital. Comment: they always say the same thing. 

Macron has suggested sending troops into Ukraine so my suggestion is not off the wall. Although most would disagree. I think that doing it may avert WW3 not create it.

🚨🇷🇺 The Kremlin says upcoming nuclear weapons drills are a response to “unprecedented” comments, including by French President Emmanuel Macron on sending troops to Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/9r0E44evsS

— Terror Alarm (@Terror_Alarm) May 6, 2024

How WW2 started

Back in the day, in 1939 Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland. There was no NATO obligation. The reason were essentially moral and ultimately about the invasion of an sovereign state by an aggressor. Same as the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

Britain decided to go to war with Germany after the German invasion of Poland in 1939 due to a complex set of political and strategic factors:

• Appeasement Policy Failure: The policy of appeasement that Britain and France had pursued towards Nazi Germany in the 1930s, hoping to avoid another World War, had failed to prevent Germany's continued aggression and expansionism. The invasion of Poland was seen as a crossing of a red line.
• Defense of Poland: Britain and France had guarantees to protect Poland's independence, and felt compelled to uphold these commitments to prevent further erosion of the post-World War I order in Europe.
• Preventing German Dominance: There were concerns that if Germany was allowed to conquer Poland, it would give them a dominant position in Central Europe that could threaten the balance of power. Britain wanted to contain German power.
• Upholding International Law: The German invasion of Poland was viewed as a flagrant violation of international law and the norms of the League of Nations, which Britain was committed to upholding.
• Public Pressure: There was significant public and political pressure within Britain to take action against Nazi aggression after the invasion of Poland, in order to defend democracy and prevent another world war.

Ultimately, Britain felt it had no choice but to declare war on Germany on September 3, 1939, two days after the German invasion of Poland, in order to fulfill its commitments and try to halt the Nazi advance. This decision marked the start of Britain's involvement in World War II.

---------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.