Brian Taylor: Ukraine...and a moment of anguish in Holyrood that I will never forget

They watched as the Ukrainian leader referenced Winston Churchill, pledging that his people would “fight in the forests, in the fields, on the shores, in the streets.”

They listened as President Zelensky quoted from Hamlet’s soliloquy, where the irresolute Dane ponders “to be or not to be”. For Ukraine’s leader, doubt was dispelled. His nation would never succumb.

As they emerged, thoughtful, I talked to several Scottish Parliamentarians, some recently elected, others I have known for years. The mood, frankly, was one of despondency.

READ MORE: Brian Taylor: Ukraine leaves us all feeling helpless – but here are three things we can do

With two key causes. One, the hideous, unspeakable brutality of this war on our continent. Two, the apparent incapacity of collective humanity, of the global order, to still the horror, to silence the scream of pain.

Had our MSPs sought a quotation from Shakespeare, they might have delved a little more deeply into the Dane: “How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable seem to me all the uses of this world”.

And yet. As my multi-faceted conversation continued, there was another note. A collective groan of despair would little profit the besieged people of Ukraine. As one senior MSP said, individuals and leaders must continue to search for a solution but must sustain solidarity in the meantime.

At Holyrood this week, that solidarity was firmly on display. Head bowed, Nicola Sturgeon said she was “horrified and deeply distressed” by the brutality on display. Douglas Ross called Putin’s actions “despicable and atrocious”. Anas Sarwar professed himself “horrified and heartbroken”.

Elsewhere, Alex Cole-Hamilton condemned “unforgivable” acts of unprovoked aggression. Angus Robertson, the External Affairs Secretary, told MSPs about individual, charitable and governmental efforts to relieve suffering.

READ MORE: Brian Taylor: Downing Street is lit in Ukraine’s blue and yellow. Our response must be more than window dressing

All laudable, yet all ultimately insufficient. The global order and historic attempts at collective endeavour, all challenged, challenged utterly.

Consider the various organisations, each seeking to condemn and cajole, each thus far ignored by Putin. Consider the United Nations. The sessions are convened with urgency and, no doubt, purpose. But the grandiose statements result in nothing. No change.

The UN, of course, is designed to promote order but also political and economic balance. It recognises power, entrenching key nations as permanent members of its security council. Including Russia.

It is right that international discourse should continue. The continuing presence of the UN is preferable to its absence, to a vacuum. Yet its inutility is also on display.

This is a European war. Surely the EU has a role? Not from the evidence thus far. Yes, the bloc has given €500m in arms and other aid to the Ukraine military, an unprecedented initiative. But is the EU able to broker peace or to end the conflict?

No – and for good reason. The EU’s origins lie in efforts to bond the economies of neighbouring nations, thus pre-empting conflict. It is not a military alliance. It is not designed or intended to engage in conflict. It has, these days, a diplomatic role, joining international discussions. But that role has clear limits. Putin, plainly, is paying no attention.

Might that change if the EU were to accede to President Zelensky’s demand for Ukraine to be granted immediate membership of the bloc? Perhaps, although it might also make plain the limits of the EU’s global clout in the face of an aggressor. In any case, it seems unlikely that demand will be met, at least on the truncated timetable advanced by Ukraine’s leader.

How about NATO then? It is a military alliance, led by the USA. Indisputably, it has the might to contest Putin and Russia. Yet it does not exercise that might – and, again, for good reason.

To intervene in the Ukrainian conflict, in opposition to Russia, would magnify the war incalculably, leading to still greater loss of life.

NATO’s founding credo is that an assault on one member is an assault on all. It is a stated, collective threat to any potential aggressor, well understood by Russia.

By that strict rule, NATO has succeeded. Ukraine is not a NATO member. The war has not touched or engulfed any NATO nation. President Zelensky warns that it will, as he seeks to win further armed assistance for his country. But, so far, without success.

The object of NATO is, overtly, to keep the peace. Its nuclear arsenal is part of that package. The doctrine is Mutual Assured Destruction. Potent nations, even superpowers, know that they would risk their own obliteration if they were to interfere with the established military balance.

And yet. What is the place of besieged Ukraine in that “peace”? What price the lives of fleeing civilians, weeping parents and desperate children?

I know, I get it. NATO involvement would lead to a catastrophic escalation. Even enforcing a No Fly Zone, as President Zelensky urges. The first Russian plane shot down could trigger global war.

And yet. Are we to stand by, spectating, as Mariupol, Kharkiv and perhaps Kyiv are bombed?

That thought undoubtedly prompted the First Minister to remark that the West must “keep its mind open” as to the ways in which Ukraine might be helped. As UK Ministers condemned her, it was stressed that she had also voiced concerns about the grim prospect of “direct military confrontation” between Russia and the west.

Could Putin face prosecution? The International Court of Justice might rule against Russia, as a whole, but Moscow could veto the judgement at the UN.

The International Criminal Court then? It may seek to target Putin, but Russia withdrew from the court in 2016. (Neither the US nor China is a member.)

It is feasible that a one-off tribunal might eventually be assembled. For now, the world community must rely upon enhanced economic sanctions, while informing the Russian people, if possible, of the true nature of the conflict being prosecuted in their name.

As we flounder, we should try to separate Putin from his people; to recall Russia’s civilised history, alongside its acts of aggression. The nation of War and Peace, the nation of Crime and Punishment.