Nato splits will only end up helping Putin

The last German chancellor from the Left-wing SPD, Gerhard Schröder, ensured Russia’s energy stranglehold on Europe. The new one, Olaf Scholz, has not seemed averse to doing the Russian president a favour, either. Despite last year pledging to transform his country’s defence and foreign policy, moving away from the quasipacifism of the past few decades, his behaviour since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine has been characterised by a hesitation that has driven his allies, particularly in Eastern Europe, to fury.

Yesterday, Nato defence ministers meeting at Ramstein in south Germany made clear that such conduct was no longer tenable. They were locked in an unedifying row over whether Berlin would supply Ukraine with the German-made Leopard 2 tanks that Kyiv says it needs. The Germans had expressed concern that providing the heavy armour would be seen as an escalation by the Kremlin, despite the fact that the UK has promised to send a handful of its Challenger 2s.

But behind the row lay evidence of deeper disagreements within the alliance over what its members consider to be a desirable outcome to the conflict. Some clearly favour the complete ejection of Russian forces from Ukraine, including from Crimea. Others fear that this could precipitate events, including within Russia, that would be difficult to control – even potentially leading to the Kremlin using nuclear weapons. Still others think the only likely conclusion of the war is for it to be frozen – with Ukraine and Russia locked in an effective stalemate that neither has any incentive to break.

Thus far, such disagreements have only occasionally made it into the open. Western leaders have broadly coalesced around the argument that this is a matter for Ukraine, especially given the sacrifices the country’s people have made to resist the invader. There is little sign that President

Zelensky would accept anything less than the total defeat of the Russians. However, the fear must be that any splits within the Nato alliance could come to be exploited by Putin.

Ukraine says it is anticipating a huge Russian offensive in the spring, one that could potentially reverse some of the gains that Kyiv has made on the battlefield in the past few months. Despite the pitiful state of the Russian economy and the evident lack of enthusiasm among many Russians about fighting, it is possible that Putin could still seize some sort of victory out of the jaws of defeat. The West’s priority now must be ensuring that Ukraine can prevent him from turning the tables in this way. If there is ever to be any deal with the Kremlin, Nato must make certain that the Russians know they are negotiating from a position of weakness. That means giving Kyiv all the weapons that it needs.

Labour’s woman problem

Too often the transgender debate ends in polarisation and hurled insults. Westminster was engaged in just such a heated battle this week over the SNP’S proposed legislation to allow gender self-declaration. But Labour does not need a political adversary to start a fight. Bitterly divided on the issue, it is more than able to go to war with itself. As became clear this week, when it does so, women are the losers.

When Labour MP Rosie Duffield stood up in the chamber to explain her opposition to the Scottish bill, she was greeted with eye-rolling and heckles from her own side, merely for pointing out the “strength of feeling amongst women ... that this bill seeks to allow anyone at all to legally self-identify as either sex and therefore enter all spaces, including… [segregated] changing rooms.” She has since written that

Labour has a “woman problem”, and compared being in the party to being in an abusive relationship. When Tory MP Miriam Cates echoed Ms Duffield’s concerns in Parliament, she was called a bigot by a male Labour MP.

Labour has sought to face both ways on this issue. Sir Keir Starmer hinted at unease with the Scottish bill but in the past has struggled to define the word “woman”. He must know that the Commons debate was singularly depressing, with women being shouted at by boorish men for putting forward their concerns. Were his leadership not so craven, it would say as much. But its devotion to the latest progressive cause will ensure that is highly unlikely, even if the victims are the very people whose rights it was championing yesterday. Ms Duffield has learnt to her cost that Labour cannot be trusted. Voters should not make the same mistake.

Pavement navigation

It is a common experience while walking innocently along the street to stumble across someone who suddenly stands stock still then begins walking in the opposite direction. They were relying on a mobile phone to find the way, but had been following a course 180 degrees wrong. If at sea, they would have hit the rocks. Today we report that scientists have found evidence that exercising the brain by more active navigation can fend off cognitive decline. It can preserve the useful “neural architecture” of the brain. So it might be good to take up orienteering. At the very least, everybody would be happier if those out of the house on their own had some inkling of where they are and what they are doing. If they avoid dementia, so much the better. In the meantime, they won’t be getting under our feet with sudden moves on the pavement.