I keep coming back to that quote usually – and wrongly -attributed to Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. I opposed the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and was dubious about many of the NATO interventions in the former Yugoslavia. Yet, with Ukraine I find myself feeling very differently as their fight for survival against an unprovoked Russian invasion unfolds on our TVs and laptops. To simply stand by and do nothing feels the wrong call altogether. Unlike those other conflicts, here the issues seem far more clear cut: a democratic sovereign state that we, in the west, see as a friend and ally, has been the subject of a foreign military assault avowedly aimed at toppling its legally constituted government. Yet, the very countries, the very alliance, NATO, that were so keen to intervene militarily in Kuwait (not a democracy), Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan (definitely not within NATO’s sphere of influence), seem very reluctant to give any meaningful support to Ukraine. This, despite their bellicose words in the build up to the crisis, which seemed designed to inflame, rather than resolve, the situation. But now that the worst has happened, much of the bravado seems absent from their rhetoric, as they hastily retreat behind their own lines, leaving Ukraine high and dry.

Sure, they’re all full of fine words about liberty and democracy and condemnations of Russia, but words don’t stop tanks or protect people from bombs and missiles. They’ve enacted some economic sanctions – particularly weak ones on the UK’s part, which is only to be expected as the governing Tory party has, in effect, been bought and paid for with Russian money over the last decade or so – but these aren’t going to do anything to influence what’s happening on the ground right now. Then there’s that military aid they’ve promised – again, too little, too late, I fear. Moreover, the Ukrainians will need training to use it effectively otherwise you might as well not bother. In the final analysis, Boris Johnson’s ‘Churchillian’ rhetoric rings hollow – he isn’t a war leader, just a spectator trying desperately to limit damage to his own party, which has been happily accepting big donations from Russian oligarchs in return for turning a blind eye to their shady activities an use of London to launder their dirty money.

But what to do? I’m well aware of all the arguments for non-intervention being advanced by ‘experts’ and politicians – that do so would risk an escalation and lead to Putin deploying nuclear weapons. But if we’re saying that we’re deterred because Putin possesses weapons of mass destruction, then surely that is tantamount to admitting that we wouldn’t intervene if he attacked a NATO member, as it would risk the same thing? Besides, I seem to recall that the invasion of Iraq was justified on the grounds that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction, (except, of course, that we knew he hadn’t)? Not only that, but whatever happened to the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, that by possessing nuclear weapons itself, NATO would deter their first use by adversaries? So yes, there would be a risk to intervening, but equally, there’s just as great a risk if we don’t. I’m put in mind of the Spanish Civil War, when the legally constituted government of Spain was overthrown by Franco’s fascists. Countries like Britain, France and the US refused to intervene. Indeed, we even used our navy to blockade Spanish ports to try and prevent military aid from reaching the government forces. Nazi Germany, by contrast, sent men and aircraft to support Franco, ensuring his eventual victory. (The Soviets did, initially, provide similar aid to the Republicans, but eventually abandoned them in order to pursue a non-aggression pact with Germany).

Thanks to this triumph and the failure of the world’s other democracies to support the Spanish government, emboldened the Nazis, seemingly signalling to them that the rest of Europe simply wasn’t going to oppose their expansionist plans. The rest, as they say, is history. I know that it is all very well my making a case for intervention of some kind in Ukraine, as I’m unlikely to be called upon to do the fighting (or dying), but that doesn’t change the fact that we stand at a watershed here. Simply standing back and hiding behind the fact that Ukraine is not a NATO member, is simply to try and postpone the problem. Victory for Putin in Ukraine will mean an inevitable confrontation with him elsewhere, (already, Russia is attempting to intimidate Sweden and Finland from contemplating NATO membership). I don’t want to see the UK involved in another military conflict, but if we sit and do nothing now, odds are that, not too far down the line, we’ll find ourselves with no choice but to become involved in a wider conflict.

So, should NATO be putting troops on the ground, enforce a ‘no fly zone’ over Ukraine to try and even the odds, or just step up military aid? I honestly don’t know. To track back to the Spanish Civil War, at least then there the International Brigades of volunteers who went to fight for democracy, now, all I see is a lot of chatter, most of it inane, on social media. That and the likes of the ‘Stop the War Coalition’ engaged in their usual hand-wringing antics and trying to paint all sides in the conflict as being at fault, or even placing the blame squarely at the feet of NATO and the EU for letting all those East European countries join them, thereby upsetting Putin. On this latter point, they find themselves aligned with the likes of Nigel Farage. How does that feel, eh? These arguments are pathetic – not to mention morally bankrupt – as are all their attempts to appear morally superior with their admonitions that ‘we must listen to all sides’ and that we should simply wait to let sanctions take effect, all the while watching Ukraine burn. What I find most offensive about them is the way that they show no empathy for the plight of Ukraine and its citizens and offer no condemnation of Putin.

Look, I actually have huge respect and sympathy for pacifists – I truly believe that is often more courageous to decide not to fight than to fight. Those who don’t bear arms are no less brave than those who do. But in this case, the likes of the ‘Stop the War Coalition’ are just plain wrong. I abhor violence and think it should be avoided – but sadly, in real life, more often than not we don’t get to choose where and when we fight our battles. By denying this right of self defence, or the right to defend someone else in need of help, you are putting yourself in the same position as those governments that refused to support the government of Spain in their civil war against the fascists. Some pious finger-wagging isn’t going to stop the killing. I’d like to say that this is the last time I’ll rant on about the situation in Ukraine, but, sadly, I doubt very much that it will be. There’s too much at stake here and I find the inaction – on any front – of our governments endlessly frustrating. They really do need to find some way of giving practical support to Ukraine, even if it falls short of a military intervention. The measures they’ve enacted so far are little better than ‘virtue signalling’ and send the wrong message altogether to Russia.

Doc Sleaze