A LATE former colleague of mine liked to tell of a leading article that he claimed appeared in the weekly newspaper on which he started his career. It was the Keighley News, which, according to my old workmate, during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, which brought the world to the brink of war through a Russian plan to base nuclear missiles on the doorstep of the US, addressed itself directly to the Russian President.

“We have had occasion to warn Nikita Khrushchev before,” it thundered.

The impotence of the gesture is comical.

But it’s impossible not to find it echoed in the international response to the Russian annexation of Crimea. Our own William Hague is in the forefront of the stern finger-wagging to President Putin. Branding the Crimea takeover “an outrageous land grab,” Mr Hague insists the world must not “run scared” before such “bullying behaviour”.

So what should it do? Of course impose sanctions. Have these ever seriously worked anywhere? Think South Africa and Zimbabwe, both extensively sanctioned. First target with Russia is Mr Putin’s circle of friends.

True, Mr Hague also foresees “more farreaching economic measures” – but only “if Russia further undermines Ukraine”. Meanwhile Europe must rush for “greater energy security”, particularly with shale gas. Well, that’s not going to happen overnight– and Mr Hague will probably pray none turns up in his Richmond constituency.

It’s all rather pathetic. It becomes tragic when set against Mr Hague’s perceptive analysis of the long-term perils of a strengthening Russian influence in its border regions.

He fears a spread of the “oligarchism” that has become endemic in Russia.

“There is an evident danger of some of the same corrupting habits spreading into democratic countries,” he warns. “In South East Europe and the Balkans, in particular, we are seeing the creation of concentrations of economic, political and media power which could inhibit the development of genuine or stable democracy and reverse progress already made. If this is not checked European democracy could be undermined in the long term.” He means even here.

Sage words. But, of course, no one wants to risk war, worldwide or other. The root of the trouble is that, following the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the warm relations with the west by Mikhail Gorbachev – the president with whom Margaret Thatcher famously said she could “do business” – no one anticipated Cold War Russia re-emerging with a vengeance. It’s very easy to ridicule the fleabite response to Russia. But what would you do?

WITH the salutations to Tony Benn still ringing in our ears, the death of the caring society he championed is further signalled by the so-called pensions revolution.

Seemingly no one dare challenge the idea that giving people freedom over what to do with their pension pot is a good thing. Didn’t Mrs Thatcher teach us that choice ranks above all else?

But there’s little doubt many people will blow their pension savings on some longedfor luxury. Some will do so in anticipation of using their pot to pay off the debt. Many of the annuities people have been required to buy are poor value. The system needed reform. But the principle – to provide a secure, regular retirement income – was sound. More people will end up relying on the basic state pension. Progress. Hurrah.