“WHAT is to be done?”, the question Lenin asked 120 years ago, arguing for a political movement that would reshape Russia and Europe for almost a century, is now the one to be answered by every country after Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
An unhelpful, but obviously true, answer is that we should have done something in 2014, when Russia illegally annexed Crimea; especially since the UK and the US were, under the Budapest Memorandum drawn up when Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arsenal, supposed to be guarantors of the country’s security. And that we should have done more by now to tackle the flow of tainted Russian money through Western centres, particularly London; to challenge Vladimir Putin’s appalling human rights record and readiness to commit blatant, even public, murders – including British citizens on UK soil – to achieve his ends; and to avoid becoming dependent on Russian energy.
But we must deal with where we now are. It is no exaggeration to say that is on the brink of potentially the most serious conflict in Europe since the Second World War. Without downplaying previous Soviet attacks – on Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan – or the dreadful internecine wars in the Balkans, this is the unprovoked invasion of a huge, stable, democratic sovereign state, bordering EU and Nato countries.
If Ukraine, as so far seems the case, intends and is capable of resisting fiercely, this could be a major protracted war. Mr Putin’s bellicose announcement that anyone who “stands in our way” will face “consequences you have never encountered” amounts to a nuclear threat to western nations, including those, such as the Baltic states and Finland, with good reason to remember and fear Russian incursions.
The West has united in condemnation, and made the appropriate noises, but our actions have not been anywhere near enough. Even a few days ago, the argument for holding some sanctions and measures in reserve could still be made; it is clear that there is little point in that now. What more need Mr Putin do to demonstrate his malign intent and untrustworthiness?
The UK has at least recognised that listing five banks and three individuals is insufficient, and extended its scope. It is right that we are providing military and humanitarian aid, but we need to do everything short of committing troops to full-scale war. We should freeze, or seize, the assets of any business or individual with ties to Mr Putin’s regime, dismiss Russian diplomats, and push for a concerted Western slew of sanctions.
The importance of barring Russia from Swift, the global bank payment system, may have been over-stated, but it would have been a start – Russia’s foreign reserves are not inexhaustible. More important, it would have shown a united front, so it was disappointing to see Germany, Hungary and Italy block that option.
It would certainly have disrupted their energy supplies and economies, but economic measures will do that for every country – sanctions always hurt those imposing them as well as their targets. This will have a material cost, and not an insignificant one, for all of us – Scotland exported nearly quarter of a billion pounds' worth of goods and services to Russia in 2019 – but it is crucial.
Cutting off the Russian political elites from western schools and universities, and homes and assets held here may have a real effect. We should bear in mind, however, that some Russians are expats precisely because of their criticism of Mr Putin, and that he has considerable opposition at home – shown by the incredible bravery of anti-war protestors in St Petersburg, Moscow and elsewhere.
But it is vital that the rest of the world puts up a united opposition to this blatant and vicious act of aggression, for which there is not a shred of justification. Mr Putin’s ludicrous allegations that Nato expansion eastwards would be an act of war were baseless, but he may, perversely, have strengthened the likelihood of an increased presence on the borders of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, and its appeal to nations with good reason to fear unprovoked attack from a bloodthirsty and utterly unprincipled despot.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel