How well is Nato living up to what we might call Churchill's commandment? Angela Merkel addressed the problem in her Berlin Wall speech on November 9: "We can change things for the better. That is the message of the fall of the Wall — it is directed at us in Germany no less than to others in Europe and the world, just now especially to people in Ukraine, in Syria, in Iraq and in many, many other regions of our world, where freedom and human rights are threatened or even trampled underfoot." It was striking that she, who among Western leaders knows Mr Putin best, did not shrink from placing him in the dock alongside Islamic State. But she did not explain how to stop him.
Nor did David Cameron in what was otherwise a robust Lord Mayor's speech. "Russia's actions pose a grave danger to the rest of Europe . . . we shouldn't need to be reminded of the consequences of turning a blind eye when big countries in Europe bully smaller countries." Indeed not; but the Prime Minister specifically ruled out "a military solution" and merely warned that "if Russia continues on its current path, then we will keep upping the pressure, and Russia's relationship with the rest of the world will be radically different in the future."
What would Churchill have thought of such vague threats as a reaction to tanks and missiles? He would surely have insisted that Britain, the United States and their allies deploy economic sanctions and military strength to deter Russian aggression. Yet even as Mrs Merkel and Mr Cameron were demanding a tougher policy towards Mr Putin, President Obama was posing for pictures with him in Beijing. Churchill's warning against division and dereliction of duty could not have been more vividly illustrated. Only Canada's Stephen Harper had the courage to confront Mr Putin at the G20. "I have only one thing to say to you: you need to get out of Ukraine." The Russian denied he was in Ukraine. "That's why I don't want to have a meeting with you. You'll just lie to me," Mr Harper replied.
Would a more Churchillian prime minister have reacted more robustly to Russia going rogue? Boris Johnson may think so, having just published a book on "the Churchill factor", reviewed by Paul Johnson. The theory may soon be put to the test: the Mayor of London is the favourite to succeed Mr Cameron in the event of a Tory defeat next May. The implications are considered by Iain Martin.
Meanwhile, Ukraine needs action this day. The Syrian civil war has killed a quarter of a million. If the Ukrainian civil war is allowed to resume, the consequences may be even worse. General Philip Breedlove, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, says: "There is no question any more about Russia's direct military involvement in Ukraine." It is time to stop Mr Putin's tanks in their tracks.
Nor did David Cameron in what was otherwise a robust Lord Mayor's speech. "Russia's actions pose a grave danger to the rest of Europe . . . we shouldn't need to be reminded of the consequences of turning a blind eye when big countries in Europe bully smaller countries." Indeed not; but the Prime Minister specifically ruled out "a military solution" and merely warned that "if Russia continues on its current path, then we will keep upping the pressure, and Russia's relationship with the rest of the world will be radically different in the future."
What would Churchill have thought of such vague threats as a reaction to tanks and missiles? He would surely have insisted that Britain, the United States and their allies deploy economic sanctions and military strength to deter Russian aggression. Yet even as Mrs Merkel and Mr Cameron were demanding a tougher policy towards Mr Putin, President Obama was posing for pictures with him in Beijing. Churchill's warning against division and dereliction of duty could not have been more vividly illustrated. Only Canada's Stephen Harper had the courage to confront Mr Putin at the G20. "I have only one thing to say to you: you need to get out of Ukraine." The Russian denied he was in Ukraine. "That's why I don't want to have a meeting with you. You'll just lie to me," Mr Harper replied.
Would a more Churchillian prime minister have reacted more robustly to Russia going rogue? Boris Johnson may think so, having just published a book on "the Churchill factor", reviewed by Paul Johnson. The theory may soon be put to the test: the Mayor of London is the favourite to succeed Mr Cameron in the event of a Tory defeat next May. The implications are considered by Iain Martin.
Meanwhile, Ukraine needs action this day. The Syrian civil war has killed a quarter of a million. If the Ukrainian civil war is allowed to resume, the consequences may be even worse. General Philip Breedlove, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, says: "There is no question any more about Russia's direct military involvement in Ukraine." It is time to stop Mr Putin's tanks in their tracks.
Like this article? Share, save or print using the icons below:
