Europe stands on the brink of war. The biggest conflagration since 1945 is now an all-too-real prospect. For many people, this seems incredible. How did we come to this? Are the terrible lessons of the Nazi era, of the Cold War invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, of Bosnia, Kosovo and of previous suppressions of free peoples by tyrannical leaders all now forgotten? Hopefully not. And yet history, confounding reason, appears set to repeat itself.
As this dread maelstrom spins, the US, Britain and the Nato allies are united in three key respects. First, their intelligence services agree Russia has sufficient military capability around Ukraine’s borders to mount a full-scale invasion, seize the capital, Kyiv, and force a change of government that better suits Moscow’s interests. US president Joe Biden suggests an attack could come as early as Wednesday. Second, the western powers are unanimous in blaming this desperate situation on Russia’s president. Vladimir Putin, and only Vladimir Putin, they believe, will decide if, when, where and how an invasion takes place. At this point (and contrary to what Biden told the allies), it’s unclear whether Putin has made a final decision. This is crucial. It means he may yet be dissuaded. It also means he, pre-eminently, will be to blame if the worst happens.
Third, the 30 Nato countries all agree they will not directly intervene militarily to assist Ukraine. This controversial stance is certain to be re-examined endlessly, whatever happens in the coming days. Ukraine is not a Nato member. There is no legal obligation to help. No one (or almost no one) wants a third world war, as a slightly panicked Biden put it last week. Yet the possibility of being obliged to look on impotently as a young, newly independent, sovereign democracy with an inalienable right to choose its friends and alliances is trampled underfoot sickens the stomach. If this is indeed the outcome, the consequences will be far-reaching. What is the western alliance for, many will ask, if not to defend freedom against unprovoked aggression?
Such inquests are unavoidable and necessary – but will have to await events. Right now, a number of pressing priorities arise. Given the pessimistic intelligence evaluations concerning Putin’s intentions, it is imperative the government move with the utmost urgency to ensure the safe evacuation of British citizens (and non-combatant military personnel and diplomats). In this respect, the Foreign Office has particular responsibility.
There must be no repeat of the chaos that surrounded last year’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, when hundreds of Afghans and dual nationals who had every right to expect assistance from Britain were abandoned to the Taliban. As revealed by the Observer, thousands of emails pleading for help went unanswered as the Foreign Office was overwhelmed. This must not happen again. It’s not enough simply to advise Britons to leave. Emergency evacuation flights should be laid on as necessary.
Coordinated western diplomatic efforts must also be stepped up to persuade Russia to back off. Biden’s phone call with Putin on Saturday should be swiftly followed up. Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, is best placed to do so. When he met Putin in Moscow last week they discussed how to settle some of the main areas of dispute, such as the future status of the eastern Donbas region. Macron should be encouraged to spearhead a diplomatic drive to avert disaster.
If diplomacy is to succeed, it must have the full backing not only of the UN but of all of Nato’s leaders. That includes Boris Johnson, who has been outspoken in threatening Russia but has had little to say by way of constructive solutions. Much the same may be said of Britain’s foreign secretary, Liz Truss, whose disastrous diplomatic debut in Moscow last week may have made matters worse. In casting himself as a Churchillian wartime leader at a pivotal moment in world affairs, the prime minister evidently hopes to distract public attention from the police investigation into lockdown partying in Downing Street. This is a vain hope. Johnson has been a marginal figure on the international stage as the Ukraine crisis has unfolded, accurately reflecting post-Brexit Britain’s diminished influence. If he thinks the embattled streets of Kyiv offer him an escape route, he is mistaken.
It is of paramount importance, too, that Putin is forcefully reminded of the severe economic consequences Russia will face if he ignores international law, common sense and basic decency by attacking the people of Ukraine. Punitive sanctions on his regime, and him personally, must swiftly ensue – and Germany, Hungary, Austria and other waverers must fall into line. Britain, too, must finally act to curb Russian money-laundering in London.
It is to be profoundly hoped that Russia can yet be prevented from making a catastrophic mistake. For whatever doubts exist about Nato, about US motives, and about the wisdom of war-fighting in general – and there are many – the west did not seek nor does it want this fight. Ultimate responsibility plainly lies with Putin and with Putin’s lies. This is Putin’s conflict.
