The diplomatic and military game between Russia, Ukraine, Nato and the European Union is becoming more dangerous and risky by the day, but it has not gone beyond a possible deal to stop the fighting and agree a settlement. This urgent objective should remain in the foreground and take precedence over further hasty and ill-considered escalation. It requires that Ukrainian and Nato leaders take real risks to test out President Vladimir Putin's proposal for a ceasefire and that he demonstrates a genuine willingness to compromise to avoid further fighting and sanctions.
Loud calls at the Nato summit in Wales for Ukraine to join the alliance and the deployment of a Nato rapid reaction force and US troops in response to Russian support for the dissidents fighting Ukrainian forces should be resisted. If implemented they would force the Russians to respond in kind and open up a much larger conflict in Europe which would be mainly to Russia's advantage. This is because these demands for escalation proceed from an incorrect understanding of the crisis. It involves not an aggressive but a defensive set of Russian actions.
Ukraine is much closer politically, culturally and historically to Russia than to western Europe, notwithstanding Nato and EU enlargement to its borders and their attractions for many Ukrainians. Russia's security interests are directly challenged by a continuation of that westernising process according to its leaders and most of its citizens, touching nerves made raw by the Soviet Union's collapse and the perceived humiliation of Russia in the 1990s before Putin came to power.
Rather than interpreting Russia’s motives in overall aggressive terms it is important to clarify what could de-escalate and stabilise the Ukrainian crisis. That would probably mean a militarily neutral Ukraine with a federal form of government guaranteeing autonomy for its Russian-speaking minorities. Most Ukrainians, even in the east, want it to stay together rather than break up, secede or be taken over like Crimea was in March. The choice facing them is between such a formula for constructive reconciliation or a prolonged half-frozen conflict draining mutual energies and souring European politics.
Putin’s ceasefire proposal would see troops withdrawn by both sides, a ceasefire, an international monitoring force, corridors for humanitarian aid, ban air patrols, swap prisoners and repair infrastructures. There is dreadful suffering in affected areas arising from the fighting. Relieving it would help create the political goodwill necessary to negotiate a wider settlement. Putin would only have himself to blame if he refused such a constructive response to his proposal. That would invite – and deserve – more severe sanctions to make him reconsider.