Overlooking Russia's concerns regarding NATO enlargement proved to be regrettable

Simon Jenkins expresses disbelief at the current prime minister's consideration of permitting Ukraine to utilize British missiles for operations deep into Russian territory, marking him as a voice of reason among many voices advocating for escalation. The writer reminisces about previous commitments made by Western leaders to Mikhail Gorbachev concerning the non-expansion of NATO's borders in the erstwhile Soviet bloc over three decades ago.

The subsequent accession of several former Soviet states into NATO has left Russia encircled and with potential threats from its surroundings, according to Jenkins. This perceived Russian unease since 20 years prior appears disregarded by Western leaders who seem to deem it acceptable for NATO to extend influence over what is seen as Russia's backyard.

Jenkins contends that history lessons are being ignored and suggests Donald Trump might be the only leader recognizing the dangers of current western imperialism, highlighting the potential futility in supporting Ukraine without Nato troops on ground or air assets (although he acknowledges Trump's flaws).

In response, Karen Miller asserts that Putin cannot negotiate any compromise by reclaiming territories already declared Russian, arguing instead for Western support to help Ukraine resist Russia. Dr Wolfgang Heinemann expresses concern over the potential consequences of NATO expansion and advocates a strong stance against further territorial gains by Russia at present.

These varied opinions provide an insightful look into the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, as well as perspectives on Western foreign policy approaches.