Ukraine: Time to stand up and be counted...

Boris Yeltsin, President Bill Clinton, Leonid Kuchma and John Major signing the Budapest Memorandum in December 1994

Let’s just get this straight. At the last count Vladimir Putin was in violation of at least three international treaties that the Russian Federation is signed up to. First, the UN Charter, which amongst other things prohibits signatories from using force – or even the threat of it – in the settlement of international disputes. Second, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which commits them to respecting the sovereignty of Ukraine within its existing borders. And third, the protocol of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits attacks on “installations containing dangerous forces” – such as the nuclear power station they’ve been shelling. Not to mention that the intentional targeting of civilians and civilian buildings also constitutes a crime under international humanitarian law. No matter what the justification, Putin is way out of line.

Yet so far, he's getting away with it. Although ‘the West’ has finally come together to target Russia with a broad range of sanctions, and the UN has now managed to pass a resolution “deploring” his actions and demanding that he withdraw, Ukraine is still burning. Its people are being displaced in their millions, and its infrastructure is being destroyed, piece by piece: without outside intervention, Kyiv looks set to get the Aleppo treatment. Faced with this prospect, the Ukrainians have been desperately urging us to help them out – but other than pledging our ‘hearts and minds’, all we’ve done is to send a few dozen crates of hand-held weapons. We may be cheering them on from the side-lines, but we’re not willing get our own boots dirty – NATO has even ruled out imposing a requested no-fly zone for fear of escalating the situation.

That might seem prudent to some – but as we sit tight and watch the largest country in Europe being torn apart from the comfort of our living rooms, it’s Ukraine that’s paying the price. Understandably, they are less than impressed with our response. President Zelensky has even said that any deaths of Ukrainian citizens going forward will be the responsibility of the West, and it’s hard to disagree with him. When Ukraine was persuaded to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994, it was with the assurance that Russia, the US and the UK would protect them from any attack by a nuclear power. As Russia has now broken that agreement, the US and UK would seem to have a clear obligation to do whatever it takes to stop Russia’s incursion. Yet we appear reluctant to do so – with the US even insisting the promise was merely ‘political’.

That’s cold comfort indeed. But there’s a higher level that we should be taking this to, beyond the interests of individual countries. It’s a matter of principle. In a world that lived up to its international commitments, by now the UN would have warned Russia to withdraw all its troops from Ukraine within the next seven days, or face the full might of a joint UN Emergency Force: one authorised to use all and any means – including tactical nuclear weapons, if necessary – to compel them to leave Ukrainian territory. There is a precedent, after all. During the Suez Crisis in 1956, the United Nations used its powers under Resolution 377 to overcome the British and French vetoes at the Security Council, and brought together a combined force of 11 nations which was sent to Egypt, compelling the invading Israeli Army to withdraw without a fight.

So why aren’t we doing that now? Because we’re running scared of Russia. We're worried that to do so would unleash the sinister threat of “such consequences that you have never encountered in your history,” as Putin chose to put it. Like the gangster he is, he’s betting we won’t dare take him on – and so far, he's right. But here’s the thing: the grim calculation of mutually assured destruction has not changed since Cuba in 1962, when Russia and the US came to the brink of nuclear war before ultimately stepping down. Even if Putin is mad or bad enough to embark on a nuclear confrontation, those charged with carrying out his orders have skin in the game too. They don't want their own country to be decimated in turn – as it most certainly would be. The terrible consequences Putin speaks of cut both ways, and both sides know that. 

Besides, there's more at play here than mere material risk. Bertolt Brecht once said, “If you fight, you may lose. But if you don’t, you’ve already lost.” And what we lose by not coming together to push back against Putin is not just Ukraine, it’s our entire post-war system of international values, and the rule of law: the United Nations, its credibility worn thin by inaction over the last two decades, will be a busted flush – and we’re back to the law of the jungle. If we believe in a rules-based system and the right to self-determination and justice, there comes a moment when you have to stand up for it, in spite of the risk: it might just help those who hope to topple Putin from the inside, too. For if we shrink from taking on Russia’s ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine, Putin will be emboldened to go further – yet when he moves on a NATO country, the stakes will be the same. So if we're saying we'd step up to the plate then, why are we prepared to sacrifice Ukraine now?