Introduction

Notwithstanding the advent of nuclear deterrence, conventional war has remained the norm throughout much of the world, and it has been waged by nuclear powers on weaker non-nuclear powers. The tactics used have been, as they always are, bloody and brutal. In very many cases a weaker ally of one nuclear power is subject to coercion by the forces of another opposed nuclear power

The West  Note; the West attaches a degree of exceptionalism to its brand of Liberal Capitalist Democracy, it perpetuates this with powerful stories about the rise of western civilisation – there is shock that this can be happening in Europe. The West is finding out what many in the rest of the world knows first-hand – war is an abomination. According to many non-Western countries this is just another war. The EU and Great Britain have been willing trading partners with Russia and/or laundered its oligarch’s money so these observers say this shock is at best hypocrisy and at worst, it displays the same racial bias that was toxic in colonialism; we are shocked when the brutality impacts people like us while we tolerate it being done to others  Note; Hypocrisy? .

Aside from large amounts of outrage and the dismissal of any dissent as appeasers  Note; Appeasers  the Wests response boils down to the supply of defensive arms, and the imposition of economic sanctions. This is accompanied by articles stating that the tectonic plates of international relations have shifted, presaging a “new cold war” and rearmament.

I will argue that this is not just another war, that there is reason to see it as different. But I also find the west’s response inadequate and dangerous; there better ways to proceed, and it is sad indeed that progressive parties seem to fall in line with the prevailing line when a more muscular and focused response is needed. What needs to be done requires nothing more than an understanding of basic ethical values and some pragmatism; there is no need to invoke so called western values which 140 countries have declined to support.

The case is made by addressing three broad questions.

• What is going on and how might it play out?
• What principles should guide our thinking?
• Does The Wests response stack up and what should it be doing? 

1 What is going on and how might it play out?

What is going on?

The West is in shock because this is a full spectrum, brutal war being waged right up to the geographical boundaries that now define it. It is being called unprecedented, a shifting of the tectonic plates, a wakeup call, as if it came out of the blue  Note; Geoghegan . In this world view it matters not; that warnings about Putin were ignored.  Note; Warnings , that wars in Chechnya and Georgia let alone against Serbia are discounted, that historical precedent suggests we should have been kinder to Russia after “winning” the cold war  Note; Ways of winning , that there is a fear of NATOs boundaries going right inside what the Tzars, the USSR and now Russian Federation see as their rightful sphere of influence  Note; Geography . The roots of this war go a long way back indeed  Note; Deep Roots

Settling into an old familiar pattern

The war is not the shifting of the tectonic plates of history but their settling into an old familiar pattern – that of competing power blocks  Note; Power Blocks .

The tectonic plates shifted in 1989-91 when first the Eastern European regimes fell and then the Soviet Union imploded. Since then we have been present at Act 1 of the new age, it is referred to as a multi-polar world, it is just power bloc competition and has been with us throughout history.

During Act 1 the West mistakenly thought that it had won the Cold War, that the world had become unipolar; from then on, all that would happen would be the gradual extension of liberal capitalist democracy – both the EU and NATO spread eastwards.

During Act 1 we have seen power blocks emerging; in the early stages the rise of the BRICs was noted. Later it also became apparent that the Wests idea of capitalist-democracy might not just spread through the world. Act 1 had some notable events, 9/11, the financial crash of 2008, the wars in the Gulf and Afghanistan, the destruction of Libya and Syria, and the electoral upsets of 2016 (Trump and Brexit). The Wests triumphalism, after winning the cold war has been dampened by these events but has not entirely gone. The situation has become even more complicated as we add the increasing awareness of global warming and the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.

What should be evident to anyone who was paying attention is that the cold war victors were wrong; they acted in the classically old-fashioned way of victors and embarked on expansion and foreign wars, given the degree of success attached to these ventures one could label it strategic overreach. The failures showed the limits of their power and around the world politicians in the new power blocks that were emerging, and solidifying took note.

The Ukraine War brings Act 1 to a dramatic end, it shows not only the precise boundaries of the western power bloc but also reveals it weakness, and share of culpability, this has ­­been commented on by many across the political spectrum  Note; Western Weakness

But something is different

There are however two things that make this war different, and which do need to be considered.

• The first is that this is a war of aggression undertaken by a nuclear power that had previously signed a memorandum guaranteeing the security of the country it is invading. This doesn’t even have the fig leaf of legality that the West habitually seeks for its own military actions.
• The second is closely related, it is the danger of nuclear escalation. The danger stems from the aftereffects of the cold war, on the Russian side perceptions of defeat, accompanied by humiliation and anger, on the EU and NATO side its distorted mirror image – perceptions of victory, accompanied by feelings of righteousness and anger.

The assumptions underlying military strategy and tactics of the West in the post-cold war nuclear world are no just out of date, they are plainly wrong. The United Nations is now being ignored and by relying on nuclear deterrence at the expense of conventional forces, as it has, the merest hint of escalation means a war of aggression can be waged. To be clear this is a simple war for territory, not for an abstract idea of liberty, not to end oppression but rather to spread it) and the West apparently cannot do anything to stop it.

Even the chaotic but jocular Boris Johnson had to confront this reality. At a news conference in Poland on 1^st March 2022 faced with the true statement that West had agreed to protect Ukrainian security and a direct request for a no-fly zone by Daria Kaleniuk, the Prime Minister Johnson responded:

“I just want to say I am acutely conscious there is not enough we can do as the UK government to help in the way that you want. I’ve got to be honest about that. When you talk about the no-fly zone … unfortunately the implication of that is that the UK would be engaged in shooting down Russian planes, would be engaged in direct combat with Russia. That’s not something we can do.”  

Various NATO commentators have repeated this, it seems to be the accepted line. And there have been strenuous efforts to row back from Joe Bidens off-mike comments about regime change  Note; Cannot remain in power

Deterrence has failed to deter any war other than nuclear war and my not even be able to do that. Wars are fought by the West in faraway places, they are fought with or by proxies and although we claim the moral high ground there are often moral hazards posed by commercial interest, not the least being oil, as well as the expanding use of assassination as a tool of policy  Note; Moral high ground? . There was nothing honourable in the carpet bombing of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia (including the use of chemical Agent Orange), the stifling of an elected government in Chile, or the branding of various wars of liberation as communist insurgencies to be fought against or otherwise subverted. This may come as a surprise to many who don’t remember the cold war or study history and chose instead to remember Somalia or Serbia, but as we have seen, the rest of the world does not have the same view

Note; how others see us . NATO and the EU have now drawn a line around their power block – surprising many by the show of unity. That’s no use to Ukraine because it is on the other side of the line.

How might this play out?

Putin is an ex KGB Officer, he regards the position Russia is in as humiliating and he wants to rebuild it as a power to be reconned with. Concerned citizens (and many pundits) have no certain way of telling if this is a miscalculation, madness or just the plan.

Miscalculation

It looks like a miscalculation, perhaps he thought it would be like Anschluss, the initial incursions were by light and reconnaissance troops but that could equally well be a cock up. It does not mean that having started it will not be taken to its conclusion. 

Madness

It may signify what David Owen calls Hubris Syndrome  Note; Hubris but it was undoubtedly ruthless and deliberate. If it is we really do need to tread with caution; the bombing of Berlin got this response from Hitler “We may be destroyed, but if we are, we will drag a world with us – a world in flames”  Note; World in flames

Part of the plan

Russia under Putin is known to use misinformation as a tactic, to cause as much confusion as possible and make it difficult to establish what is true and what is false. To deliberately cause confusion is part of the playbook  Note; Confusion as a tactic

The invasion was launched on 22^nd February and according to most observers has not gone as expected, but it does seem to fit a pattern  Note; A pattern . If the pictures of Grozny from the war in Chechenia are a guide, and it was described by the UN as the most devastated city in the world at the time, then this war in the Ukraine it will get worse and worse. 

There are many possible ways that this can end, the BBCs Diplomatic Correspondent identified 5 distinct possibilities; short war, long war, European war (with possibility of nuclear escalation), diplomatic solution and Putin ousted  Note; Possible Outcomes

These should be considered as the exemplar cases of the sorts of things that could happen, each one is full of details that also may or may not happen so the eventual outcome could well include elements of several of them. One outcome that may occur given the way the fighting on the ground is turning out is some form of partition with a frozen border on ongoing diplomatic tensions. This looks like the short war but with the puppet regime(s) being installed only in the eastern and Black Sea areas, whether there is ongoing guerrilla action and protests in the captured areas is unclear. 

The underlying point is that once a war is committed to the outcome is always uncertain – the enemy is simultaneously trying to wreck your plans, secondly any action you take will provoke reactions; there will be immediate as well as long term consequences which cannot be easily foreseen. 

The risks are real

All this is bad enough, what is beginning to be talked about now is what happens if Putin crosses a red line and uses a tactical nuclear weapon or chemical weapons. It is implied that this would be in the theatre (to use the jargon) not against a NATO member. Jonathan Powell was clear on BBCR4 World at One (10 March) that the west needs to be thinking about this now, he implied we would need to do something. 

This sort of thing is alarming, the author can remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. But if we unpack a red line what is being said is simple enough – there are some ways of killing people that are OK and others are not.  We will sit by as thermobaric bombs are used (saving arms supply and economic sanctions), we will lament the mass shootings now coming to light, but we will consider an attack on Russian assets by NATO, if a red line is crossed, risking escalation and to what end? 

The right response to a war is to end it and the right response to a war crime is to prosecute it. As a citizen I demand that my government at least make the effort to think this though coherently and act morally. 

2 What principles should guide our thinking?

There are some very basic principles that can be applied to devise appropriate actions. If they were used, they would lead to a course of action that was both pragmatic and ethical. They would be pragmatic because they would be designed to match ends and means, by doing so they would have the best chance of success and the least chance of doing more harm. They would be ethical set against the principles of just war theory. 

Let’s run through these principles and see how they can guide thinking.

• Balancing ends and means
• Reciprocity
• Just war theory
• Power, warfare and the art of the possible 

Balancing ends and means

To balance ends and means we have to know what it is we want to achieve, only when we know that we can formulate actions (means) that move us towards the objective (end)  Note; Balancing Ends and Means

For the sake of argument let’s say the objectives are as follows.

• The war should be brough to an end as soon as possible
• It should support a rules based international order that respects national sovereignty   Note; Rules based world order  

This is simple to express but difficult to do, in warfare even more because the other side is actively trying to make you fail. The reason to balance ends and means is also simple – because any action will create reactions; if the West wants to take meaningful actions it will have to assess how those actions will be responded to and whether they take us towards the objective. 

There is no reason why this cannot be both the right approach and at the same time be very  difficult to bring about – anything to do with 9 billion squabbling primates is not going to be easy or simple. What is simple, is the vital fundamental to a life and death situation - because the right thing to do is hard we do not give up on it or do other, easier things, just because something must be done if those things are in themselves dangerous or unlikely to work (i.e. they are the wrong things to do)  Note; Something must be done

Reciprocity

Whenever an action is taken it has a reason, it may be reflexive (a knee jerk or emotional response) or it may be deliberate, that is it is intended to make something happen – so for deliberate actions it is obvious to ask what the action is intended to achieve and judge it by whether it works. 

Because all actions are reciprocated, they cause reactions: one way to judge an action is to look at the reactions that it is likely to trigger and judge if the reaction also represent a step in the right direction. If it does how do you amplify it, if it does not perhaps it is the wrong action to take. We all know this through saying like “be careful what you wish for” and are aware of consequences through sayings like “if it can go wrong, it will”. 

Reciprocity is simply the mechanism by which virtuous and vicious circles are created – if an action helps to improve things it can start a virtuous cycle, if it makes them worse a vicious one. 

In a war a lot of actions are directed towards the enemy’s ability (or will) to keep fighting, in a conventional/legally conducted war there is a tacit agreement that if one side can overcome the others materiel (the army/equipment it uses to conduct military operations), then it will see that it has lost and seek terms. This lies behind a lot of writing on the “art” of war. Unfortunately, reality is not so simple – everything attempted by one side is the target of spoiling actions by the other. Depending on what you read about war this is friction  Note; Friction , because it is impossible to know many things action must be take in ‘the fog of war’ and ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy’. 

In analysing different approaches to prisoner’s dilemma Axelrod discovered a strategy that could lead to the emergence of cooperation even in a highly competitive environment. The approach most likely to succeed was to let no wrong go by without an appropriate, proportional response but signal in advance that you are willing to cooperate.  Note; Axelrod

We can make sense of the Ukrainian tactics through this lens; so far they have fought the Russians to a standstill (without escalation) and have kept the lines of communication open by continuing to engage in peace negotiations  Note; Ukraine's approach

Just war theory

With balancing ends and means and reciprocity defined we can move to the core of the issue and look at the war in the Ukraine though the lens of just war theory  Note; Just War . 

This is just a quick run through from the perspective of the West getting involved. Looked at from Ukraine position it is certainly fighting a just war and looked at from the Russian side it fails on all counts  Note; Russia's unjust war

Ad Bellum (before the war)

• Just cause; wars must have a just cause, in this case a wrong has surely been committed 
• Last resort: wars must be undertaken only as a last resort, everything else must have been tried and failed, according to just war principles war is only ever a lesser evil but is still an evil. As this essay will show the West is far from having tried everything else. 
• Proper authority: a war can only be conducted by a recognised authority, there are issues here with insurgencies, however NATO is a defensive alliance and as such its remit does not allow it to make an armed intervention and it has stated categorically that it will not do so. Given that the war is one of aggression it can be argued that the UN would be an appropriate proper authority to deal with this.
• Right intention; a war must be fought with the right intentions, to right a wrong, it can be waged against aggression but not for self/national interest or aggrandisement. 
• Reasonable chance of success; a war must have a reasonable chance of success because if it does not it is doing harm (evil) for no effect. Against this criterion a lot of actions fail because e.g. bombing to indicate disapproval or send a message. This requires ends and means to be in sync. 

In Bellum (during)

• Discrimination: military targets are the only legitimate ones
• Proportionality: there must be no escalation or wanton destruction/killing
• Individual responsibility: hold throughout the chain of command, just obeying orders in not a valid defence 

Post Bellum

• Reasonable terms in the case of victory; any peace settlement must be fair and avoid punitive terms, there is no place for vengeance. 

Yes these are a tall order, but combined with reciprocity and balanced ends and means there is no reason why a pragmatic approach should be dismissed as idealistic. 

Power, warfare and the art of the possible

Anyone who wants to improve the world must engage with the problems associated with the use of power. War (including civil war) is simply the raw application of power , it is basically what happens between sovereign states (monopoly holders of the legal authority to kill) when extortion is refused; a transaction is rejected - do what I/we want is met with a No, in a war this becomes do what I/we want or we will force you (involving killing), this is met with a no that says, no I will kill you instead. 

It possible to dress this up and talk about the art of war, the most famous expression being Clausewitz’s observation that war is the pursuit of policy by other means. 

There was a peculiar period in European history when limited war regarded as “the sport of kings”. The convention was that armies fought each other and the result would be abided by. Even then it had its limits, as we see in the right to plunder after a siege, or the application if scorched earth policies when needed. It was a limited view hardly extending beyond Europe and it would break down in the second half of the c19th and completely during the c20th. The second world war was fought with the aim of Unconditional Surrender and brought to close with the use of nuclear weapons. 80% of the casualties were civilians (against 20% in World War 1). Nevertheless, the cold war in Europe had a limited aim, to “contain” communism not to overthrow it. Outside Europe it was fought hotly and brutally; anything went. 

So here is a problem, the rest of the world might be less sympathetic than we expect to a war in Europe which Europe cannot deal with, as a result mobilising in the UN is likely to be very difficult. My question is simply this - does that mean the West shouldn’t try and do the right thing? 

When the West needed legal cover for a war in the Gulf we were all over the UN. The silence from the EU and NATO on using the UN in this war is deafening (Note; using the UN)

3 Does the West’s response stack up and what should it be doing?

As noted above this is a war of aggression perpetrated by a nuclear power that had previously guaranteed the security of the nation it is invading. Neither of these differences can be used to fully explain the reaction by the EU and NATO which look both dangerous and cowardly at the same time. 

The West’s response

Because the West thinks that the UN is useless and cannot be cajoled into line  Note; Irony , because it thinks its way of doing things is the only way to do things, because it thinks business is the answer to everything and ignores the rest of civil society,  because it has double standards, because it just must do something, because its politicians (at least those in charge now) will not do not do the hard thinking needed to match ends and means…and above all because it is morally and physically weak underneath its nuclear virility umbrella it reach’s for the only things it can do the supply arms and economic sanctions and hopes for the best. 

The supply of arms

The scale and extent of these has surprised a lot of observers, there have been comments in the media about how this shows the resolve of the liberal capitalist democracies, they may have been asleep but now they have woken up  Note; Waking up

However the US would not back up the Polish proposal to supply Migs (i.e. Russian aircraft, inherited from its Warsaw Pact days) for the same security risks I have been describing. If it was thinking in leadership terms the US would be asking for this help to be UN badged – it might still fail but the symbolism would be better. 

It seems to be agreed that the supply of arms must fit a definition of defensive weapons which has so many logical problems it seems risible, we will supply anti-tank weapons but not tanks. A tank can be used defensively, active defence involves counter-attacking. What is in play here is simply the fear of provocation. 

The Ukraine didn’t provoke Russia, except by its existence. The issue for NATO is being outside the reemit of article 5 it has not got ‘proper authority’ for involvement. The United Nations isn’t NATO, what it is a constituted legal authority, one which could be a ‘proper authority’ for action – if it can be persuaded to. We don’t seem to be trying  Note; UN Reform

Economic sanctions

If the problem with arms supply, is that it could be seen as NATO interference then the problem with economic sanctions is that they can be seen in exactly the same way. In addition they are a blunt instrument, difficult to aim and control and with unpredictable results. They will either fail or take a (relatively) long time to have an effect. If our aim is to stop the war this isn’t the obvious choice of tactic. 

Let’s suppose that economic sanctions also hurt the economies imposing them. There will be some political blowback. There will be some public reaction, it might be on the lines of why are we doing this if it isn’t working, we want to do more. Given the populist nature of some western governments this sort of pressure may well be a spur to further escalation – it shouldn’t need to be said that embarking on war to satisfy an emotional public is unwise  Note; Need for cool heads  What will they do to Russia? It seems to depend on who you read. 

According to assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto “The central flaw in the design of western sanctions is the premise that putting economic pressure on the inner circle of Russia’s president will cause them to demand change”  Note; Why sanctions will not work

Expecting that there are people who will stop him may be wishful thinking and is certainly very dangerous. We are far from the days when Khrushchev could be removed for adventurism - there isn't a politburo of rivals, there are just people who are locked into the system that has been created. 

According to Robert Reich following this logic they need to be widened at the same time as remembering that Russian citizens are not Putin  Note; More Sanctions but

If the economic sanctions prove disastrous to Russia they could throw Russia into chaos, lead to more repression (they, or the war not proceeding to plan, may already be doing that) and in the ensuing confusion who is to say the nuclear wire will not get tripped. The only historical precedent I can think of is US policy towards Japan in the late 1930's. Whether or not the attack on Pearl Harbour was a response to that or was coming anyway I could not say. 

What the West should be doing

It should be clear that I think what it is doing is at best ill thought out and may even be reckless and to be clear there is no just war the west can wage  Note; no just intervention for the west but it isn't the west's problem alone.  Note; Embedded culture of harshness

I suggested in section 2 that in order to balance ends and means two reasonable objectives would be

• The war should be brought to an end as soon as possible
• To respond and act in a way that supports and strengthens a rules based international order

Using the principles above a way forward begins to emerge

• Work to create support for a United Nations intervention in the Ukraine
• Stop actions which can be misinterpreted as, or which are in fact escalations.
• Control actions which will prolong the fighting,
• Provide help and refuge first and ask questions later
• Seek unity around these aims 

1. Work to create support for a United Nations intervention in the Ukraine

Such intervention must be robust and may include a no-fly zone and have rules of engagement that allow force to be used to stop illegal actions

Badging an intervention to create a no-fly zone as a UN operation and having someone in charge of it who isn’t from Europe would be a start for the first and using the United Nations would show a commitment to a rules-based world order.

Russia also has a veto in the Security Council of the UN making it difficult to see how the Security Council can be made to take any meaningful action. Well let’s take this head on.

There is absolutely no doubt that the crime of aggression has been committed, the case needs to be made that because of its action Russia has forfeited its place on the Security Council. As President Zelensky said to the Security Council on 5^th April “Where is the security that the security council needs to guarantee? It’s not there, although there is a security council. So where is the peace? Where are those guarantees that the United Nations needs to guarantee?”….“It is now clear that the goals set in San Francisco in 1945, for the creation of a global security international organisation, have not been achieved,” he continued “And it is impossible to achieve them without reforms.”  Note; Zelensky calls for UN reform

Absolutely correct, why wasn’t one of the leaders of The West sponsoring such change and being proactive in advocating it – accompanying the President of the Ukraine in joint approach asking for action now an putting reform on the agenda as a sweetener.

The author claims no expertise is international law but merely observes that when it suits us, we can be all over the UN looking for legal cover for military operations.

A package of reforms could address the reality of the multi-polar world. Maybe a way of thinking about the Security Council is that it needs needs to become an equivalent (suitably updated) of the Congress of Vienna after 1815. One might ask why Britain and France continue to occupy places, France could be represented though the EU which would bring in a re-arming Germany, it would be ‘global Britians’ job to justify its continued place or to cede it gracefully in exchange for getting action on the Ukraine  Note; Country Rankings

What the author finds shocking, as a citizen of one of the countries making up the West, which likes to see itself as the bearer of western/enlightenment values, and calls itself the  free world, is how easily the politicians (right across the spectrum) have given up on the UN having created it in the first place. One of its members is criminal and should be expelled, with the veto gone action becomes possible; surely it is our duty to  save the UN now or see it sink into complete irrelevance.

A multi-polar world without any moderating institution faced with the disruptions that will come as global heating continues is a frightening prospect; extreme weather events will cause famine, mass migration and wars throughout many areas. We have had a financial crash, a (relatively mild) pandemic and now a war to nudge us along, to give us chance to rehearse, the signs are not good that our current political leaders have the measure of how serious this is.

2. Stop actions which can be misinterpreted as, or which are in fact escalations

As I have outlined above, actions aimed at wrecking the Russian economy and hoping for regime change, are escalatory if they are perceived as full-scale economic warfare – they will have consequences we cannot control or predict but they will not stop the war.  Viewed in this way they may be considered reckless. 

There is a simpler and more obvious objection, on purely pragmatic grounds they are unlikely to work if the more muscular, but limited and reasonable objective is to stop the war as fast as possible and bolster a rule based international order. 

3. Control actions which will prolong the fighting

The supply of arms is legitimate if undertaken at the request the of the Ukraine government during the conventional phase of the war; it is not legitimate to support a long-term, destructive guerrilla campaign if the Ukrainian army is defeated, instead, we must work through UN to insert peacekeeping forces between the two sides and bring about a negotiated peace.

As at 5^th April we have the prospect of the Czech republic breaking ranks to supply Soviet era tanks to the Ukraine, Biden early refused Poland’s wish to send Soviet era fighter aircraft  Note; Ad hoc assistance

4. Provide help and refuge first and ask questions later

As a citizen the author is frustrated by the tawdry response of UK. It seems to require a process that might just work in peacetime when the urgency of the situation demands waiving it.

We should open borders and provide as much humanitarian aid as we can muster for the refugees and people stranded in Ukraine. How can the government decry Russian actions and continue its bureaucratic hinderance of sanctuary, it rings very hollow?

My guess is that we are seeing the long-term consequences of actively developing a ‘hostile environment’. It was created as a response to populist (often racist), media amplified fears of immigration. It has persisted for years and is now so culturally embedded in the Home Office that it cannot be kind and humanitarian when it needs to be.  Note; A World Problem

5. Seek unity around these aims

All politicians and leaders should to unite around these aims.  It seems to the author that the majority of political leaders in the West have lost their moral compasses when it comes to international relations. They have lost their vision, fail to build political capital that can be drawn on when needed and do not appear to be willing to undertake the hard work of thinking through how complex questions need to be addressed.

These proposals are at the same time, more ethical, more balanced and if they could be enacted more muscular and likely to succeed than the current response by the West.

Economic sanctions are ill thought out, a scattergun approach not without serious risk. The risk may actually be greater than a no-fly zone badged as a UN operation and blue helmeted peacekeeping troops going in with robust rules of engagement.  The supply arms at some point moves from justified help to unnecessary prolonging (although the signs are we are not there yet by quite a long way).

Choices

That these actions are not a statements of the bleeding obvious shows just how tunnel visioned the West view now is. If they appear to be idealistic and not workable then perhaps it is because the West is partly culpable for normalising war and having corrupted the UN in the process of seeking cover for its own interventions.

That does not mean that we should continue down a wrong and dangerous route or that it is too late to change tack. The war in the Ukraine could be the nail in the coffin of a rules-based world order and poses the risk of nuclear escalation. As always we have a choices.

We can continue as we are, stand aside of face the into the problem with some vision and determination. 

Continue as we are, with sanctions and arms supply, waiting until a so called “red line” has been crossed and this goes in a number of ways

Economic sanctions may be treated as economic warfare; to the surprise of many pundits in the West that is what they say they look like. If it looks like that to us and your war is going badly, what does it look like to Putin and those round him? Retaliation has been mentioned. Unless we spell out the route back as well as backing up tough talking with action that show we are developing non-nuclear capability to back up our words then we are taking enormous risks with the possibly disastrous consequences

Support an insurgency and live with continued risks for years to come – see the geographical boundaries of the new power blocks solidify and mistrust mount, participate in a reinvigorated arms race.

We may get lucky and one of the other power blocks provides a broker and framework for a diplomatic solution, Turkey is keen, China may see an opportunity

At some stage, to meet popular anger that something must be done, bring down Armageddon for a principle – no signs of this so far but talk of red lines is worrying

Stand aside, reinforce the EU/NATO demarcation line and stay out of it, let the other power blocks get on with their business and hope for the best, after all business is business. 

Article 5 has not been invoked, Ukraine is not in NATO, so strengthen the cohesiveness of the West as a power block, settle down to being just one pole in a multi-polar world

All that can be said for this is that it at least does no immediate harm but if our leaders really believe they are powerless that is the true logic of their position. It would actually mean that economic sanction are a way of showing disapproval but by the same token they should be limited and targeted, the West should not engage in economic warfare, pretend that sanctions will end the war, bring down Putin or help Ukraine. Our politicians just don’t have the bottle to spell this out to their electorates who can see a wrong that violated everything their governments tell them they stand for.

Face into the problem with vision and determination. The world should act responsibly and face the challenge posed by Putin, the West should be leading – not because this is a local European war but because it is a betrayal by a member if the Security Council and comes with nuclear threats. The object is to bring the war to an end and do so in such a way that recovers and starts to repair what is left of the rules-based world order.

Use the principles of just war theory, match ends and mean and do the hard work inside the UN to make it work – twist arms, make deals get it sorted, this requires vision, leadership, and a calculation of the match between ends and means  Note; Twist arms and make deals

It is also necessary to put the world into a place where concerted action can be taken in the future, something we will need as global warming effects kick in.

The signs are not good, I am especially upset by the “progressive” parties to whom an approach along the lines suggested should be obvious; but it is not too late, all other outcomes are worse.