The Russians Have Arrived, The Russians Have Arrived...

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 withing NATO's sphere of influence), seem very reluctant to give any meaningful support to Ukraine.  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 half-hearted financial 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 - all very well, but if you don't also train the Ukrainians to use it effectively then you might as well not bother.

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)?  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.  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).  I've news for you guys - the war has started, some pious finger-wagging isn't going to stop it.  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 sometimes we can be put in a position  where we have no choice but to defend ourselves.  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.

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 ad 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.