Is it time to change our stance on engaging against Russia?

THE cold logic expressed by Western leaders that to engage directly against Russian armed forces in Ukraine would be to “start World War III” looked, even just a few days ago, very difficult to deny. From the Secretary General of Nato, Jens Stolentberg to US president Joe Biden and our own Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the red lines seemed clear: we would do all we could to support Ukraine and undermine Russia, but any direct military intervention – even the establishment of a no-fly-zone – would be an act of aggression too far.

Most people in Britain, fearful of a nuclear war, almost certainly support that position. But as the slow, grinding invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces continues, is it going to be sustainable? Already sane voices are beginning to question whether the West really can stand by and see a free and democratic nation invaded. With large numbers of its civilian population likely to be killed and massive damage already done to its infrastructure can our only response be the supply of defensive weapons to Ukraine and tough sanctions against Russian oligarchs?.

Some people are asking what precisely is the point of international treaties and legal protections if, when the chips are down, those in the free world are not prepared to back them up with force. The rule of thumb, applied in this conflict, is that we only act militarily when another Nato country is threatened. Yet Britain and the United States, backed up by a coalition of 37 other nations, moved to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait – not a Nato member – when he invaded in 1991.

The stakes may have been much lower in the first Gulf War and the outcome far from ideal, but the principle, that a despotic leader, in this case Iraq, had invaded a neighbour and should be challenged militarily, held good then. Some will be asking what’s the difference now.

There is always a danger in taking a tough stance against an aggressor. In the 1930s, with memories of the slaughter of the First World War still very fresh, Britain pulled its punches when faced with the expansionist efforts of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. In the end war was inevitable. There is an argument to say that with Putin the West has behaved in a similar way. Decades of what can easily look like Western appeasement and half-measures in response to Putin’s atrocities may have served to embolden the Russian president. In essence he doesn’t believe the West will take serious military action against him in Ukraine.

He’s factored in the economic sanctions and the global condemnation; he can live without football finals and the Eurovision Song Contest and he believes that far from making a serious mistake, as many in the West claim, he has judged things precisely correctly.

Are our political leaders all across the free world going to make him think otherwise? As things stand there looks to be little chance of that. But the longer this conflict goes on the more confident Putin will become. It will be a Herculean task for western leaders to move against Russia and they will have to take the people with them. But, in the long run, might it be a less bloody option than sitting back and letting a dictator prevail?