ALL of us this week have been transfixed – even stunned – by the bravery shown by Ukrainians defending their homeland. Our thoughts go out to them as they fight for the very existence of their country.

We should care about Ukraine. The right to have a say in your country’s future peacefully through the ballot box is not a ‘Western’ indulgence: it is a fundamental freedom, which alongside protections for individual rights against an over-mighty state, is something all of us on the planet are entitled to. That is not to say liberal democracy should be imposed from the outside, but where it is under threat we should do all we can to support those defending it.

And defend it we must. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 saw a massive increase in democracy globally, particularly in Eastern Europe. But this century freedom has started to go into decline: the number of free countries has declined every year for the past 16 years, according to the think tank Freedom House. Only 20 per cent of the world’s population live in fully free democracies compared to 38 per cent under authoritarian rule. Not for nothing it is termed a ‘democratic recession.’

But it would be a grave mistake to make over-simplistic comparisons with the Cold War.

Then, as now, we face an expansionist, nuclear-armed Russia. But this time there is also China to consider, whose economy will in the next decade overtake that of the United States. China wants stability so it can trade around the world – but like Russia is utterly committed to upending the American-led international order that has delivered more freedom, prosperity and peace to the world than ever before.

Given the readiness of President Putin to scare the world with threats of nuclear annihilation, we are right to avoid a direct military confrontation in Ukraine.

There are no easy short-term fixes to the crisis we face and it may not be possible to halt Russian expansionism while this unhinged dictator remains in post. But in the long run the ideals of freedom, peace and democracy are more durable than the authoritarianism he espouses.

We therefore need to show what is called ‘strategic patience.’ It took us 43 years to ‘win’ the Cold War, but in the end we did so without a shot being fired – at least between the main protagonists. We need to dig in again for the long term.

That means two big changes in our approach. Firstly, while we are right to impose sanctions, they take time to have an effect. Our objective in introducing them is to reduce the ability of the Russian state to finance the Russian military. That means eliminating Europe’s dependence on Russian gas, something that will take time. We should also consider secondary sanctions, that is to say sanctions against third parties from other countries who continue to trade with Russia. All countries need to make their own choices in a situation like this but there can be no justification for profiteering from the gaps created by the measures the West now takes.

Secondly, we need to review our military capabilities in Europe. Putin is explicit that he is seeking to redefine Russia’s boundaries either in line with the USSR or previous Russian empires. That means he will not want to stop with Ukraine. European countries need to consider whether we too should be spending closer to the 3.7 per cent of GDP that the United States spends on defence. If that sounds expensive, just consider the costs of not doing so: preventing a war is always cheaper than fighting one.

These are grave days not just for the people of Ukraine but for all of us. Good outcomes are never guaranteed in history. But if we rise to the challenge of what has happened, the enduring power of freedom will surely prevail.