Two influential and controversial U.S. figures stepped into the debate over Ukraine's potential long-range strikes on Russian territory by claiming such a move could result in "the end of the human species."
In a joint opinion piece published on Sept. 17 by The Hill, Donald Trump Jr. and former U.S. presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. argued that lifting restrictions on long-range missile attacks would mean the NATO military alliance was "at war" with Moscow.
Ukraine is hoping for permission to use two Western-supplied long-range missiles that it already possesses and new ones it is pleading for to strike military targets such as airfields and military bases located deep inside Russian territory. The issue is expected to be on the agenda at the U.N. General Assembly in New York next week.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr is expected to visit the U.S. during that period to also hold discussions on the matter with his American counterpart Joe Biden, as well as presidential candidates Kamala Harris, currently vice president, and Donald Trump, who is seeking to return as leader of the world’s most powerful country.
As discussions between Ukraine and its Western allies have progressed, Russian President Vladimir Putin and other officials have upped their rhetoric, claiming that such a move would equate to NATO waging war with Russia. Russia has consistently issued threats, including nuclear ones, since the beginning of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but none of them have materialized.
Trump Jr., the son of former President and Republican nominee Donald Trump, and Kennedy Jr., known for pushing multiple conspiracy theories, said lifting restrictions "would put the world at greater risk of nuclear conflagration than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis."
"It is past time to de-escalate this conflict. This is more important than any of the political issues our nation argues about," they wrote, adding: "Nuclear war would mean the end of civilization as we know it, maybe even the end of the human species."
We asked five prominent Ukrainians what they thought of the piece.
Prof. Olexiy Haran
University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy, and research advisor at the Democratic Initiatives Foundation
"Frankly speaking, it seems that the authors do not understand the reasons for the war and Russia's aims. They are only repeating Russian lies. Escalation from the side of the West? Come on!
"The authors pretend they do not know the facts. In 1994 Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal – the third largest in the world – in exchange for territorial guarantees provided by the UK, the US and …. Russia.
"In 2010, Ukraine officially declared itself to be neutral. Until 2014, Ukrainians were strongly against joining NATO.
"And, nevertheless, Russia attacked Ukraine in 2014. Putin is openly saying there is no separate Ukrainian state, Ukrainians should be part of the 'Great Russian people.'
"He is annexing Ukrainian territory. The former Russian empire is trying to come back.
"According to the U.N. Charter Ukraine, as a founding member of the U.N., has the full right to defend itself. We may criticize the Biden administration but only for being slow in providing support and weapons to the victim of aggression.
"He is annexing Ukrainian territory. The former Russian empire is trying to come back."
"The whole country is being bombarded from the bases inside Russia, Ukrainian civilians are dying every day. Can Ukraine strike back on Russian bases?
"Or Russia should be allowed to continue to destroy the whole country. Instead, the authors of the article yield to Putin’s nuclear blackmail. They say: 'No vital American interest is at stake.'
"If Russia succeeds it will be a signal to all other tyrannies in the world to start aggressions and to use nuclear blackmail. We will live in a world of the jungle."
Francis Farrell
Dmitry Grozoubinski
author and former diplomat
"In order for there to be a nuclear exchange, the President of the Russian Federation has to decide to initiate it. It does not occur automatically when he gets angry or humiliated enough.
"He is not a video game boss with a slowly filling rage meter. This man, who lives in unbelievably luxury, obsessed with his own personal safety and status, has to consciously decide to die in nuclear fire. That’s the threshold.
"As I write this and perhaps even as you read it, the Toropets Arsenal, one of the largest arms stockpiles in Russia, is burning from what was reportedly a mass strike with over a hundred Ukrainian UAVs.
"It is over 500 kilometres from the frontline, and far closer to Moscow and St. Petersburg than to Kyiv, Kharkiv or Lviv. Yet the sky is miraculously free of nuclear missiles, and the horizon of mushroom clouds.
"Are we supposed to believe, as Donald Trump Jr. and RFK Jr. apparently do, that Putin is willing to end all life on earth over a strike on a strategic stockpile, but only if the munition that delivers it was made in a Western factory?"
Nataliia Shapoval
economist, and head of the Kyiv School of Economics
"Kennedy and Trump Jr. are wrong: complacency with Russia's nuclear blackmail doesn't reduce the risk of escalation for the U.S. and the world—it increases it. Yielding to Russia's threats emboldens Moscow and conveys that whatever Russia does, the U.S. can't stop them.
"Russia has been continuously probing the U.S. and NATO's responses to its violations of international law and human rights. So far, Russia hasn't faced any strong reaction. Russia violated the sovereignty of independent states in Europe; committed war crimes; kidnapped thousands of children; used U.S. technology to create deadly drones and missiles; collaborated with Iran and North Korea on weapon production; occupied a nuclear plant, risking a catastrophic meltdown; and destroyed one of Europe's largest water dams.
"Therefore, Russia has no motivation to pursue peace, neither through negotiations nor through war. And this is what Kennedy and Trump Jr. are not saying in their appeasement proposal: What leverage, what bargain with Russia will they offer in the negotiations?
"If the U.S. cannot offer deterrence and is not willing to give Russia a strong response — even by the hands of Ukrainian soldiers — because they don't have this leverage.
"Kennedy and Trump Jr. are effectively proposing to negotiate peace by allowing Russia to occupy Ukraine, making Russia NATO's neighbor, triggering massive refugee flows and genocide in plain sight."
Kateryna Hodunova
Tymofiy Mylovanov
president of the Kyiv School of Economics
"RFK and Donald Trump Jr. say the U.S. should surrender Ukraine to avoid nuclear war, giving Russia a rhetorical victory after its failure to secure one on the battlefield. This defeatist stance disregards centuries of American courage and leadership in defending freedom.
"Their argument reinforces two Russian propaganda narratives. First, it frames Russia's invasion as a response to NATO, ignoring Ukraine’s sovereignty. Second, it portrays Russia’s lack of action against Ukraine's successes and Western support not as a sign of weakness or bluff, but as calculated strategic restraint.
"The piece remains lofty, avoiding specifics or factual depth. The authors largely oppose granting Ukraine the autonomy to use Western weapons, without addressing the critical reasons behind this necessity. In reality, the authors show little interest in the actual reasons or how these weapons will be used.
"Instead, they engage in demagoguery, simply opposing any potential decision by the Biden administration to lift this policy restriction, driven by political motivations.
"It’s disheartening to witness U.S. domestic politics aligning some politicians with Russian propaganda, undermining national security and diminishing America’s global standing by portraying it as vulnerable to Putin’s empty threats."
Danylo Lubkivsky
director of the Kyiv Security Forum
"Despite the famous names of the authors of this op-ed, it looks like a weak attempt to engage the U.S. into direct talks with Russia on Russia's terms. In my opinion this is a classic case of myopia, when completely narrow political interests prevail over strategic thinking, and it's clear in this message.
"From my perspective, both the key idea and the arguments they use are misleading. Since talking to Russia on Russia's terms means to accept Russia's aggression, and a Western defeat. And this will be clear not only for the Kremlin, but also for other capitals that closely follow the developments of the strategic activities of the U.S. and Western allies.
"The key idea of their piece is misleading since they insist on starting direct talks with Russia on Russia's terms. But also, they use false arguments.
"They say: 'Imagine if Russia were providing another country with missiles, training and targeting information to strike deep into American territory.'
"This is false since the way Western allies support Ukraine fulfils the U.N. charter which clearly recognises the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the U.N.
"If Ukraine strikes into Russian territory, this is a legitimate right of Ukraine to do so. And the argument we make to our Western allies is that no artificial restrictions should be on the usage of weapons because we have the full right according to international law to strike to attack legitimate military targets on Russian territory.
"So instead of getting afraid of Putin's red lines, I would advise the authors of this piece that the West should long ago have imposed its own critical limits.
"If you give up, who will respect your interests?"
Jakub Parusinski
Introducing official merch
from the Kyiv Independent
