People might differ in opinion as to whether those are complimentary or contradictory aims.

I post this series of photos of anti-war demonstrations in central London as a neutral observer (more photos will be following soon). I'm no fan of either Russian or Western imperialism and military aggression and I have every sympathy with the Ukrainians who are facing a war of aggression from their more powerful northern neighbour, part of the motive for which seems to be to rebuild the prestige and power of Russia, as a sort of new Russian empire reflecting the former hegemonic influence over Eastern Europe of the Soviet Union. All at an immense cost in lives, and also a clear and grave violation of international law. Putin's decision to escalate the nuclear standoff with the West by publicly placing his nuclear forces on high alert should be another reminder of just how dangerous he is.

However, the West should also share a significant portion of the blame for this war. The Russian invasion is far from "unprovoked" as many media commentators claim. First, we have to remember recent history and how Russia has good reason to fear NATO which was originally set up to combat the threat of the 'Russian hordes.' It is remarkable how in 1990 Mikhail Gorbachev, despite his familiarity with Germany's responsibility for having invaded Russia twice during the twentieth century (in 1914 and 1941), agreed to allow East Germany to join West Germany inside a hostile military alliance. There was however a quid pro quo, as promised by President George H. W. Bush (senior) and Secretary of State James Baker that NATO wouldn't move "another inch to the east" but that promise was soon broken as during the Clinton presidency, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary joined, and then under President George W. Bush, the NATO alliance was further extended to include Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Baltic States, and further still under Obama to Croatia and Albania.

This means that NATO forces are now frequently deployed right around Russia's western borders (except for Ukraine and Belarus). One can imagine, Washington's paranoia, if say in the 1960s or 1970s, Mexico and Canada had declared their intention to join the Warsaw Pact and many people may be familiar with how Cuba's desire to station Soviet missiles on its territory to deter a feared US invasion (and frequent terror attacks), almost led to a nuclear war, though fortunately Khrushchev saw wisdom and backed down in the face of JFK's terrifying brinkmanship and secretly the United States did agree to withdraw some of its older strategic nuclear missiles from Turkey.

At the same time the United States sees Ukraine as occupying a key space on the strategic chessboard, and has ensured that Ukraine has become increasingly dependent on foreign debt and Washington's goodwill, and has continued to plan for Ukraine's eventual incorporation into NATO. That would mean Ukraine, which occupies a vital strategic position on Russia's southern flank and with its border just 350 miles from Moscow, would also become a potential platform for an assault on Russia and even if no assault ever occurred, the mere fact of NATO's enhanced power, would inevitably greatly diminish any remaining influence Russia had to counterbalance US hegemony in Europe. That's why Ukraine's membership of NATO is something which no Russian leader was ever likely to accept. It is of course easy to see a possible compromise - that Ukraine should remain neutral but that in return all countries should respect its territorial integrity, although allowing some autonomy for the Russian speaking areas in Crimea and the Donbass.

Western media has downplayed the suffering of the Russian population in the Donbass region, which for years has been subjected to constant shelling from government forces, and although Ukrainian civilians have also been killed by Russian backed separatists, the UN figures clearly show that year after year, it was the Russian population which suffered a far higher level of fatalities and serious injuries, including the deaths of many children.

<a href="https://ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conflict-related civilian casualties as of 31 December 2021 (rev 27 January 2022) corr EN_0.pdf" rel="noreferrer nofollow">ukraine.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/Conflict-relat...</a>

Western media also holds up Ukraine as a beacon of freedom and democracy, but while there have been some important gains for civil society in recent years, Russians have good reason to be unhappy. The Ukraine government has harassed and detained several opposition and pro-Russian journalists and in February 2017 it banned the commercial importation of books from Russia and a new education law made Ukrainian the sole language of instruction in secondary schools, which obviously discriminated against its Russian population. Fascist militias are also growing in number and corruption is endemic while the UN Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture suspects the Ukrainian government of operating secret prisons.

However, it should be noted that the human rights record of the separatist regions of Luhansk and Donetsk have also received intense criticism from the UN OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) and various NGOs for suspected human rights abuses, while Russia's appalling human rights record and its increasing authoritarianism is well known.

To avoid the enormous risk of a nuclear confrontation the West has to start thinking of a way to allow Putin to climb down, without jeopardising European security or sacrificing the freedoms of the Ukrainian people and the obvious way would be to agree to recognise Ukraine as a neutral sovereign state which would remain outside NATO and with a real democratic autonomy for the Luhansk and Donetsk regions.