Tread carefully to avoid this catastrophe turning into another world war

Ilived in Kyiv from 1990 to 1994 and my home was near the golden domes of St Sophia’s that millions now see nightly as the backdrop for TV broadcasts. It breaks my heart to see Russians and Ukrainians killing each other. It chills me to the bone to see an authoritarian Russian state evolve into something even darker.

The Kremlin’s near daily threats of nuclear war are despicable. But they also need to be treated seriously as a symbol of a desperate regime.

So, what can we say? In the last Cold War, experts closely studied the Soviets. The resulting insights gave birth to a subject known as Strategic Culture. It argued that Russian decision-making, as with everywhere else, is shaped by culture, outlook and behaviour.

Calling Putin “mad” prevents us from understanding him. Instead we must accept that Putin’s strategic culture is shaped by fear of invasion, protection of Russia’s authoritarian state and a desire for status. Ukraine represents the nexus of these fears. A democracy in Kyiv, however imperfect, threatens Moscow’s autocracy. Russia without Ukraine becomes a country, not an empire. A Ukraine outside Kremlin control feeds Russian insecurity. Yes, this mindset belongs to another era but, like it or not, it animates the Kremlin.

Putin has misjudged Ukraine. But mass Moscow uprisings are unlikely, unless the war kills many thousands more Russians. An outbreak of sudden humanity in the Kremlin is also improbable, as is a palace coup. Those around Putin are flatterers or share his embittered world view. A potential exception may be Valery Gerasimov, the gruff Russian army chief of staff, who may not wish to see the elan of his rebuilt army shattered murdering fellow Slavs in Kyiv and Kharkiv.

Right now, the best outcome may be a stalemate with a negotiated outcome that gives Putin face to withdraw while claiming victory; but even this may be wishful thinking. Let’s remember, the siege of Aleppo lasted four years. It ended only after a dozen days of chemical weapons use.

The great danger is that, because the West under-acted before, we will over-compensate now and this dreadful conflict will spiral into something even worse. Yes, we should continue to supply arms, training and intelligence to Kyiv, to isolate Russia in all peaceful ways and to use our diplomatic power to forge a global alliance. But we also must keep communicating with Moscow. Every time they talk of nuclear force, we need to remind them that they are not truly under threat. The antiWestern hysteria of Russia’s security elite must be quietly but firmly challenged. Let’s talk to them in a reasoned language, unless we want verbal escalation that plays into the hands of the doomsday extremists.

Specifically, the US, the UK and France need to re-establish deeper dialogue with Russia on nuclear weapons. The greatest risk remains their accidental use. Next, the UK, Nato and the US must intensely “wargame” scenarios. Those scenarios must range from least bad outcomes to plotting how to step back from a full nuclear exchange, so that we can identify all the potential decision points and triggers to dissuade the Kremlin from destructive courses of action. More generally, the UK spends its time reacting to events rather than shaping them. This has to stop. A National Strategy Council is the answer.

Leaders across the Western world now need to be able to say that, having failed to act consistently over the last 15 years, having failed – frankly – to inform our peoples fully about a darkening world, we did all we could to prevent a disaster turning into a catastrophe. Previous world wars were stumbled into by politicians who were too blind to the dangers or too scared to act until it was too late.

The images that will come from Kyiv in the coming days will get worse. The stakes are getting higher. Every step now needs to be resolute – but they must also be carefully considered.

Having under-acted before, the great danger is that the West will now overcompensate