It was good news that the Ukrainians managed to sink the Russian flagship Moscow using two missiles in the Black Sea.

According to unanimous reports from Ukrainian and American sources, the rockets come from Ukraine's own production.

These Neptun rockets are the result of years of development work that had recently been completed and apparently could not yet lead to large-scale production.

What is striking is how quickly the news broke that the missiles in question were Neptun missiles, not anti-ship missiles from western supplies.

Presumably, this information policy served the purpose of preventing the Russian side from even suspecting that NATO was partly to blame for the loss of Moscow.

Whether the exact target coordinates came from American air reconnaissance was not reported;

nor has it been denied.

It speaks volumes that Russian propaganda does not associate the shipwreck with an enemy direct hit, but dismisses the matter as a fire in the ammunition depot.

The ship is said to have never sunk and most of the crew are said to be fine.

A question of honour?

Apart from the high symbolic power of the sinking of the Russian flagship, it is obvious that the Ukrainian side has demonstrated an ability that is important for the further course of the war with the attack;

it is vital for Ukraine to keep Russian warships off its shores.

France had supplied the missile

Since Ukraine's own production of the anti-ship missiles used is likely to be severely limited, the demand that the West must supply Ukraine with comparable missiles is now all the more obvious.

Despite all the enthusiasm about every ship sunk under the command of war criminal and mass murderer Putin, the West should resist this.

When next Russian ships are destroyed by Western-supplied missiles, that very military success could be the last straw and lead straight to nuclear escalation with NATO.

We don't know what might happen inside Putin in such a case.

But there is historical precedent that must be found alarming from the point of view of military psychology.

During the Falklands War, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sent her navy into the conflict with dozens of nuclear weapons.

From circles close to the government it was announced right at the beginning of the war that the United Kingdom could react to Argentina's illegal occupation of the Falklands with nuclear retaliation;

probably saber rattling.

But on May 4, 1982, the British Sheffield, which fortunately was not equipped with nuclear weapons, was hit by an Argentine missile;

she went aground a few days later.

The Exocet missile came from French arms supplies.

As the French President at the time, François Mitterrand, reported from a telephone conversation with Thatcher on May 7, the Prime Minister seriously aired the idea of ​​ice-cold launching a nuclear strike on Argentina in the event of more warships being sunk;

Mitterrand believed that she would be able to implement this plan – not unlike a British nuclear commander at the time named Robert Green.

She was notorious for her tough uncompromising attitude.

In addition, the fate of the fleet means prestige for any warlord - and great shame in the event of costly casualties.

Experts dispute whether the worst would have happened if the worst had happened.

Thatcher would probably have thought better of it in time.

Or the others responsible for a British nuclear strike would have bricked.

Or maybe Mitterrand was just ranting about his conversational rendition.

Or Mitterrand confidant Ali Magoudi, who quotes him under oath, lied after all.

Even those who find all of this more likely must admit that these are not rationally compelling interpretations.

The disturbing fact remains that at the time there was a real possibility of a nuclear strike;

it wasn't the most likely, but it was there.

Consider: Mitterrand was always more credible than Putin is now;

and Mrs Thatcher's ethical standards were dozens of times better than Putin's.

From this we must conclude that the same danger is now more than ever in the room.

This time, a chain reaction can develop, at the end of which our Europe will be destroyed forever.

Keywords: