It clearly made sense when the prospect of an assault on Kyiv was looming to withdraw the British embassy from the capital to Lviv in the west. Now, however, with the withdrawal of Russian troops from around Kyiv and a refocus of the fighting to the Donbas region, it should be the moment to return the ambassador and her key staff to the capital. The Italian embassy reopened in Kyiv on Easter Monday, France is following suit and other Western countries, Austria, Estonia, Slovenia and Lithuania have already reestablished a diplomatic presence back in the capital.
Some might say that it is still too risky to return even a limited number of staff to Kyiv. Yet it is worth recalling that an element of risk attaches to many postings. British embassies and consulates have over the years been attacked (by locals) in capitals from Beijing to Tehran with staff being abused and ill-treated. British diplomats and attachés have been kidnapped, assassinated and attacked even in friendly Western countries, Canada, (Quebec), Netherlands, Ireland and Greece, and in Libya, Turkey and Uruguay. Staff have, as is the case in Ukraine, been withdrawn many times when the embassy has been in a conflict zone.
In Belgrade during the Bosnian war, my embassy was partially (dependents and non-essential staff) evacuated to Budapest. The threat on that occasion was from a local reaction to perceived imminent Nato bombing. The bombing never took place and all staff and dependents soon returned to the embassy which had remained open throughout. The staff in the Chinese embassy in Belgrade were not so lucky a few years later when the US bombed and badly damaged the embassy during the Nato bombing of Yugoslavia, killing 3 people in the process.
Every case needs to be examined on its merits and a proper risk assessment made. While it is easier to err on the side of caution, there are strong arguments for returning the core staff to Kyiv now that the focus of Russia’s war machine has shifted to the Donbas region.
For instance, a physical British presence in Kyiv would be a symbol of Britain’s deepening support for and sense of closeness to Ukraine in its desperate hour of need. It would also underline our continuing determination to work for an early ceasefire, a peaceful diplomatic solution and the permanent withdrawal of all Russian troops from the areas they have recently occupied.
The embassy will be able to engage directly with Zelensky’s staff to offer advice and encouragement and of course to act as a diplomatic channel. President Zelensky, whose PR touch is the envy of most if not all Western politicians, cannot be expected to act as a one-man foreign office while he has a war to run. The embassy would also be able to offer practical consular support to British citizens who have been unable to leave and to the brave British members of the press corps in and around the capital.
In terms of morale, a physical Western presence can bolster the Ukrainian people whose resolve, determination and bravery have excited admiration from all but the slavish Putin-admirers.
Reestablishing a British presence could also prompt a move by other countries, particularly those in Nato and in the Commonwealth to reopen their diplomatic missions. The snowball effect might in fact act as a deterrent to any renewed offensive by Russia against the Ukrainian capital, though it would be unwise to place too much trust in President Putin’s respect for the concept of diplomatic immunity.
Nearly 500 years ago, Machiavelli wrote “Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please”. A British diplomatic engagement in Kyiv can play its part in ensuring that, when the war begun by Vladimir Putin ends, the outcome doesn’t please him.
Sir Ivor Roberts, a former President of Trinity College, Oxford, was British ambassador in Yugoslavia, Ireland and Italy
