Ukraine War, April 4, 2022 (III): After Bucha, it’s time to discard the taboo on considering the use of force; The use of force may be required to stop Putin from turning Odessa into another Mariupol


Due to rapidly-breaking developments and in order to facilitate readers’ access to the latest dispatches, we are publishing this article as it is being written. please check back for updates and additions.

To see a list of previous articles, enter “Ukraine” in the Search Box on the upper right, on The Trenchant Observer web site, and you will see a list in chronological order.


1) Anna Schneider, “Ein militärisches Eingreifen der Nato darf kein Tabu mehr sein,” Die Welt, den 4. April 2022.


Putin must be stopped. How can that be done?

After Bucha, Anna Schneider of Die Welt analyzes Germany’s slow evolution of policy on Ukraine and rightfully concludes, “A NATO military intervention in Ukraine can no longer be a taboo.” She writes,

Revised Google translatiom

While people in this country are giving Putin enough time to prepare for the next sanctions and people are arguing about whether it would be manageable and justifiable to implement an oil and gas embargo against Russia, one aspect is left out. There can no longer be a taboo against considering a NATO military intervention. Not as an attack on Russia, but as a defense of Ukraine and the freedom it stands for.

The brutal truth is that economic sanctions are not likely to stop Putin’s slaughter of thousands of Ukrainian civilians and the total destruction of Ukrainian cities.

Putin must be stopped NOW.

There are undoubtedly many other atrocities like Bucha of which we have yet to learn, or whose grisly details are yet to be revealed (e.g., Mariupol, Kharkiv).

Putin must be stopped NOW.

He must be stopped before Odesa is turned into another Mariupol, and before thousands of Buchas are found across the country.

The time to act is now, before the commission of further crimes against humanity. To limit the further commission of crimes against humanity. To save the lives of those who otherwise would be the future victims of crimes against humanity.

Whatever means may be required, the goal of stopping Putin must be achieved.

Low-risk options include immediate transfer of the Polish Mig 29’s to Ukraine, the prompt transfer to Ukraine of modern tanks (not 30-year-old relics from the Cold War), and the most capable air defense systems in NATO’s inventory.

Rockets and missiles that can take out Russian missile batteries in Russia or Belarus from which missiles are being fired at Ukrainian cities should also be included.

Other possible measures include the introduction of NATO forces in the Western Ukraine in an essentially defensive posture, the introduction of armed humanitarian aid convoys, and the eventual introduction of limited no-fly zones to protect the the provision of supplies through humanitarian corridors to besieged populations.

Anna Schneider hit the nail on the head. “There can no longer be a taboo against considering a NATO military intervention.”

National Security Council Adviser Jake Sullivan stated today in a news conference that U.S. troops would not enter Ukraine to fight Russia.

That does not preclude othe NATO members from contributing forces to a NATO or a NATO-member military intervention in Ukraine. Moreover, ss the U.S. sees momentum for such an operation building, it might well change its mind and join, and perhaps even lead, such a defensive intervention.

Such an operation would be essentially defensive in nature. Troops would enter the Ukraine at the request of the Ukrainian government. Their presence would be lawful under the U.N. Charter and international law, in sharp contrast to the illegal presence of invading Russian troops.

Such a military operation would use or threaten to use limited force to help defend Ukraine against the “armed attack” of Russia, in exercise of the right of collective self-defense guaranteed by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

In terms of goals and strategy, NATO members and other civilized countries need to decide, and to loudly proclaim, that they and Ukraine are going to defeat Putin and his army of war criminals.

Their clear goal must be victory, not a negotiated stalemate that will threaten Europe for the next 30 years and lead to further wars.

The goal must be victory, the successful defense of the Ukraine, the U.N. Charter and international law, and civilization against an all-out assault by Putin and Russian barbarism.

The Trenchant Observer