TURKEY has been a candidate to join the European Union and its predecessor organisations for more than two decades. Indeed, Boris Johnson cynically used that prospect to alarm voters into backing Brexit.

In practice, negotiations about Turkish accession are stalled. Small matters such as democracy, human rights, the rule of law – and Cyprus.

History hangs over the nexus between Turkey and the EU. I recall discussing the issue with a senior Turkish politician.

He told me: “Yes, we have applied. But we will not beg. We are Turkey”.

Unspoken thoughts there of past power. Of the Ottoman Empire.

Now, according to reports, Turkey is one of the conduits to a possible settlement in Ukraine, brokering negotiations with the aggressor, Russia.

History looms over that brutal conflict too, albeit a distorted view of the recent and more distant past.

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

Vladimir Putin knows, he must know, that Ukraine yearns to remain free. Yet he imposes his own perspective; that Ukraine is, in practice, Russian or within the Russian sphere of influence.

Incidentally, I dissent from those who argue that the fundamental concept of “spheres of influence” is entirely outdated. Tell that to NATO which watched contentedly as its membership spread eastwards.

However, even as we acknowledge that, we condemn Putin unreservedly on two grounds. One, of course, is brutal, vicious, barbarous war, imposed upon a suffering people.

This hideous violence has provoked a global response of empathy for the people of Ukraine, exemplified in the support from Scotland set out by the First Minister earlier this week.

Nicola Sturgeon explained practical proposals, such as Scotland standing as a collective super-sponsor for refugees to obviate red tape.

But she also pinned the blame directly upon Russia’s dictatorial leader. The situation was, she said, “down to the evil of one man – and I am using that word deliberately – Vladimir Putin”.

The support for Ukraine comprises many countries, many states. But also individual opinion. People brandish Ukraine’s colours.

I believe – perhaps, more accurately, I hope – that such sentiment can seep through to the people of Russia, including individuals who may still have sway with the country’s leader.

So, point one is armed terror, globally condemned. But point two is that underlying distortion of history.

Putin simply will not leave Ukraine in peace. It disturbs his perspective, his grotesque Hall of Mirrors view of Russia’s standing.

Ukraine’s courageous leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has also turned to history in his sustained attempt to secure further support, particularly military backing, from western nations.

He spoke to the House of Commons in the language of Churchill and World War Two. He reminded the US Congress of Pearl Harbour and 9/11. For Germany, he evoked the Berlin Wall.

With each address, he was reminding these powerful states of moments in history when they had been at their most vulnerable. He was urging them to help counter aggression.

Consider the German example. However the Ukraine crisis is resolved, Germany’s world view has changed. More precisely, its view of Germany’s contribution has changed.

Read more from Brian Taylor: Ukraine leaves us all feeling helpless – but here are three things we can do

The recently elected Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, told an emergency session of the Bundestag that it was “Germany’s historical responsibility” to ensure that Putin did not turn the clocks back.

Every ear listening to that would recognise an echo of times past, the harsh voice of another dictator who used brute force to impose a distorted vision upon Germany and the world.

Chancellor Scholz said Germany could no longer be an observer of military endeavours by other nations. He announced a fund of £85bn to bolster the German armed forces.

I listened to another German politician, from another political party, expounding upon that theme. David McAllister MEP, whose father was Scots-born, chairs the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee.

He told an event organised by St Andrews University that “everything had changed” in Germany and more widely as a result of the February 24 invasion of Ukraine.

The EU, he said, was now probably the world’s leading soft power, deploying diplomacy, trade links and global influence. But it needed to bolster that with hard power.

That meant a serious EU security and defence policy, backed up by enhanced military hardware. On this, he argued, “Dictator Putin” had created greater EU unity.

Intriguing stuff, with potential for considerable change. However, of itself, not directly or immediately relevant to Ukraine’s present plight. (To be clear, Mr McAllister did not remotely pretend otherwise; he was talking of future strategy.).

Equally, not directly or immediately relevant to the UK and our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, given that we are no longer members of the European Union – a development which may, in practice, help facilitate the development of an EU defence policy.

Mr Johnson addressed the Scottish Conservative conference yesterday, no doubt relieved that the Scottish party leader Douglas Ross has rescinded the red card he previously issued to the Prime Minister.

The PM has tiptoed towards the prospect of Ukrainian neutrality by suggesting that, in reality, there is “no way” Kyiv will negotiate membership of NATO any time soon.

Importantly, the Ukrainian President has voiced comparable thoughts, at least as far as NATO is concerned. Which would appear to be the opening of an avenue towards peace.

Except. Both the UK and Ukraine leaders say, understandably, that President Putin cannot be seen to gain from his unwarranted aggression.

Which, presumably, means no concession of Ukrainian territory seized during this war or in 2014.

Once again, history will intervene. Are Crimea and the other seized territories Ukrainian – or Russian? On this point, will there be an absolute, clear outcome – or some form of grudging partition?

Then, perhaps the biggest question of all. Securing a cessation of hostilities and, most importantly, making that last.

History will undoubtedly instruct the Ukrainians to be wary of any promise issued by Russia and its leaders.

They are, again understandably, demanding “legally verified security guarantees”.

But who might stand guarantor? President Putin? The Russian Federation? The EU and/or NATO which have declined to intervene militarily for fear of wider conflict? The UN?

It would seem that global pressure, including economic sanctions, is forcing Russia to rethink. Perhaps, also, its military might is facing substantive resistance from Ukraine.

History will tell.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.