Normally, when asked to write a piece for The Argus I don’t have a problem knowing what I want to say. But this week – faced with writing about the war in Ukraine – the blank page on my computer is intimidating.

It’s not intimidating because I don’t have anything to say on the subject, I probably have too much to say.

It’s that the whole situation is so desperately sad and bleak that I can see no good outcomes for the people of Ukraine – no good outcomes for those huddled in dark basements with diminishing supplies of food and water listening to the sound of their homes being bombed, nor for those racing westwards in the hope of finding sanctuary nor, worst of all, for those being killed and injured by Russian air attacks.

So how does this dreadful conflagration end?

Does Putin, whether deranged or not, keep up his air offensive – as he did in Aleppo in Syria and Grozny in Chechnya – until he has flattened every major city in Ukraine, forcing the Ukrainians to surrender unconditionally? Or, unthinkably, does it end with Nato intervening to save hundreds of thousands of lives and risking a nuclear confrontation with the unpredictable monster sitting in the Kremlin?

This is not, in the fateful words of the then British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, when talking about Czechoslovakia in the build up to World War Two, “... a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing”.

We know a great deal about Russia and Ukraine, not just because of media and social media coverage but because there are many among us who know these countries, either as migrants or visitors.

I have worked in Ukraine, training journalists, and have always admired their resilience in the face of overwhelming difficulties – and we are seeing much of that resilience in their reporting on social media today.

It is also, not for me, a faraway country. My grandparents were born there but were forced to flee, not from Russian bombs, but from marauding gangs of Cossacks who were hunting down Jewish families. It’s a credit to modern-day Ukraine that not only did they elect a Jewish president but Ukraine’s Jewish community is one of the largest in Europe.

The Jewish population of Ukraine, and in particular its heroic Jewish president, should be of only minor significance in the current conflict, were it not for the fact that the madman in the Kremlin describes Ukraine as a country that needs “denazification” – a bizarre claim but one that is believed by too many people in Russia.

We are witnessing, not only the power of Russia’s armed forces, but also the power of fake news which has been “weaponised” by autocrats and dictators around the world who want to spread confusion and demoralisation.

So what, if anything, is to be done? Certainly, we in this country could be doing a great deal more. Our response to the refugee crisis has been, compared with the European Union, frankly embarrassing.

All 27 members have opened their borders and welcomed Ukrainian refugees, enabling them to stay for at least three years.

We all but slammed the door shut, only allowing those Ukrainians in who have family connections in the UK. It’s shameful, as is the fact that there are at least 21 oligarchs who have been sanctioned by the EU but left untouched by our government.

And to add insult to injury, while the EU brings in its sanctions immediately, we give at least 28 days warning. Little wonder that the billionaire owner of Chelsea football club, Roman Abramovich, who has not yet been placed under sanctions here, is seeking to sell the club, as well as his grandiose properties in London, in great haste.

But these arguments about sanctions and refugees, important as they are, pale into insignificance when we watch the heart-breaking news reports coming out of Ukraine – reporting which has highlighted the role of the BBC as a globally trusted source of reliable information.

Of course, Nato could confront Putin on the ground and in the air but then what?

The prospect is unthinkable. The only thing that will make Putin end his reign of terror is either the virtual obliteration of Ukraine as a country and its unconditional surrender, or Putin’s realisation that although he might win the battle in Ukraine, the long-term cost to Russia, and to his hold on power, might be a price not worth paying.

But that, of course, assumes we are dealing with a rational decision-maker – and about that I am not sure.

As I said, there are no good outcomes.

READ MORE: Archbishop of Canterbury calls on government to do more for Ukrainians