Had Western forces taken a confident approach, Nato would have dispatched a division to support Ukraine and averted disaster.

Tobias Ellwood. Feb 12. 2022

The first rule of conflict is to know the higher commander’s intent. What does the supreme boss want to achieve? Understand this and your own orders for battle are placed into perspective.

It’s a question I pondered after seeing two UK ministersdispatched by Number 10 to Moscow. How does this action factor into a wider plan to alter Russia’s behaviour?

Representatives from France, Britain and soon Germany will have rotated through the Kremlin corridors. But what leverage have we assembled to dissuade Vladimir Putinfrom invading?

Where is the international leadership, collective Western resolve, and mobilised hard power that would genuinely alter the current trajectory of events? In short, where is the deterrence? Simply put, we have no Russia strategy.

Additional Nato forces now surround Ukraine, but none are in it. To compound matters, we also fail to understand our adversary’s intent. We are missing the bigger picture.

This is a dictator who is still blaming the West for the demise of the Soviet Union. Mr Putin wants to make amends and is considering his legacy. The recent joint statement with Xi Jinping of China confirmed his intention to encourage Russia to look east in the long term rather than west.

A vigorous state-run disinformation campaign has already persuaded most Russians that Nato is the aggressor, intent on expanding its remit eastwards to threaten Moscow. Any Western sanctions imposed after an invasion will only assist Mr Putin in convincing Russians that their future is better served by looking east.

All this leads to the largest military build-up since the Cold War. More than half of Russia’s entire warfighting assets surround Ukraine. High-tech complex weaponry has recently arrived in Belarus and a significant maritime armada sits primed in the Sea of Azov. We’ve left Ukraine to face the inevitable, surrounded on three sides.

As soon as we ruled out sending Nato forces into Ukraine, we were no longer in control of events. The largest most formidable military alliance in the world, operationally benched.

Our excuse? “Ukraine is not a Nato member.” Hiding behind this line is a flagrant disregard for European security and glosses over previous out-of-theatre operational commitments to Afghanistan, Serbia and Kosovo. 

It also suggests that we are blind to the bigger strategic picture. Any invasion will trigger higher food prices, as Ukraine’s vital grain exports are interrupted, along with oil and gas. And it will cement the Moscow-Beijing Axis as Nord Stream 2 is written off in favour of gas lines to China.

Teetering on the edge

This is about much more than Ukraine. It’s a totemic moment as we enter an era of increasing instability. How we handle this international challenge will have long-term security consequences.

A more confident and resolute approach would have resulted in Nato dispatching a division to support Ukraine. Instead, we have opted for a Chamberlain approach rather than Churchill.

It is true that the US has absented itself from the international stage. But as our history shows, that’s normally when Britain steps forward to fill the void. But the West has been found divided and with little appetite to stand firm.

It is not too late for Nato. Remember why it was formed and rekindle a sense of purpose in defending European security. This could be exhibited by introducing a Ukraine no-fly zone.

Right now, the two anti-Western presidents for life – Mr Putin and Mr Xi – smell weakness. As ever in history, a power vacuum is being exploited. If Ukraine falls, it will see the beginning of our modern world sliding into two spheres of competing geopolitical influence. Welcome back to the Cold War. We need leadership now.

Tobias Ellwood is the chairman of the Commons defence select committee