ALL the signals coming out of the Ukraine conflict are now flashing red. In recent days, the US administration has leaked purported information that Russian generals have discussed using tactical nuclear weapons to compensate for their setbacks on the battlefield.
Moscow has summoned the British ambassador to be confronted with evidence of British participation in attacks on Russian warships in Crimea, which the government denies.
Furthermore, there are allegations by Russia that Britain may have blown up Russia’s Nord Stream gas pipeline in September, an attack which certainly corresponded to US interests, political and commercial.
It is impossible to ascertain what truth there is in all these accusations and counter-accusations. In relation to the pipeline, much is being made of an alleged enigmatic message sent by Liz Truss to the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken reading “it’s done” immediately after the blast. Hardly categorical evidence of anything, but if such a message was sent, it has gone unexplained so far.
The fear must be, that where there is an escalation in rhetoric, an escalation in fighting will not be far behind. One thing that is certain is the extent of gung-ho British government support for Ukraine, using the conflict as a proxy war against Russia.
To that end, Britain has worked to obstruct any prospect of peace negotiations, and has used the supply of weapons to Kiev as leverage to impose the most intransigent position possible on Volodymyr Zelensky’s government.
Whether or not it bombed Nord Stream or helped Ukraine attack Sevastopol, the British government is now playing with fire. So too is any general thinking of using nuclear weapons — an escalation which risks drawing a direct Nato military response, at which point we would be on the ladder leading to nuclear annihilation.
Britain would be in the front line of any such extension of the war, to judge by the statements from Moscow. That ought to give a responsible British government at least pause for thought.
This paper has condemned February’s invasion of Ukraine by Russia from the outset. Nothing that has happened since leads to a revision of that view. But more than ever, the imperative is to bring the conflict to an end.
Not only is the death and destruction in Ukraine horrifying, not only are the economic consequences devastating for millions, but the risk of a wider war of incalculable scope must mandate urgent negotiations.
Yet any voice raising such a proposal in the US or Britain is immediately howled down by an inflamed war party that stretches across much of the political spectrum.
When 30 progressive Democrat members of the US Congress wrote to President Joe Biden with such a proposal, they were forced to withdraw it in short order, such was the backlash.
In the House of Commons Keir Starmer has effectively silenced the left on this issue by threatening the withdrawal of the whip from anyone who as much as raises an eyebrow at Nato’s historic responsibility for the conflict and its conduct over the period since the invasion.
Essentially the only opinion allowed to be heard is of supporting Ukraine all the way to an improbable, categorical military victory, to be bought at a devastating cost.
That is no longer supportable. The bipartisan omerta around the possibilities of a negotiated end to the crisis is inimical to the interests of the British people and of world peace.
Ultimately, Ukraine and Russia would have to agree any deal on security, sovereignty and territory for themselves. They should be encouraged, not obstructed by other powers. The world is nearing a precipice.
