As Vladimir Putin’s ground offensive falters and Ukrainian forces push Russian troops back in parts of the Donbas, the Kremlin is reverting to a familiar strategy: if it cannot defeat Ukraine’s army, it will try to break the morale of its people. With winter approaching, Nato must urgently consider how to protect Ukrainian civilians from a Russian campaign designed to destroy their electricity, heating and water supplies – and do it without dragging the Alliance into a direct war with Moscow.

I have seen this movie before. In Syria, I watched Russian aircraft bomb schools and hospitals while the West debated what to do. For years, I and others called for a no-fly zone over Idlib province. Nato had the capability to protect civilians, but lacked the political will. Thousands paid the price.

One memory from my last trip to Syria, in 2019, remains painfully vivid. I was in a hospital in Aleppo when I met a little boy, perhaps two years old, who had been left with just one limb after a Russian air strike on his home in Idlib city three weeks earlier.

I had just received a call from my oncologist telling me I had prostate cancer. Understandably, I was feeling rather glum. But when I looked up from my phone, this little boy gave me an enormous grin. It was utterly heartbreaking. Here was a child who had lost almost everything, yet could still smile at a stranger.

I had only a $50 bill, money I carried as emergency insurance, and stuffed it into his shirt. That boy, and that grin, are why I kept going to Syria and why I campaign so relentlessly to protect civilians in war zones. They are also why I cannot accept that we should simply stand by and watch the same horror unfold in Ukraine.

Putin’s battlefield strategy is failing. Russian forces have suffered staggering casualties for very limited territorial gains, some of which Ukrainian troops are now reversing. The Kremlin faces the uncomfortable task of explaining to its population why so many men have died for ground it cannot hold.

Putin’s answer, as we approach winter, is to dust off the Syrian playbook: hammer Ukraine’s cities, destroy its energy infrastructure and leave millions without heat or electricity. Civilian suffering becomes a weapon, intended to undermine morale and force Kyiv to accept peace on Moscow’s terms.

With American policy under Donald Trump increasingly unpredictable, Europe cannot afford to wait for Washington to decide what happens next. Britain, France and their Nato allies possess formidable air power. They should urgently examine whether it can be used defensively to protect Ukrainian civilians from Russian missiles and drones.

There is already a precedent. British and French aircraft and missiles have demonstrated their ability to intercept Iranian missiles and drones in the Middle East. If Western aircraft can help protect civilians and critical infrastructure there, why should Ukrainians be denied comparable consideration?

Of course, the operational challenges are formidable. Russia has sophisticated, far-reaching S-300 and S-400 air-defence systems, and any proposal to police Ukrainian airspace must contain the risk of escalation. It would not be sensible to take out Russian radars or launchers on Russian or Belarusian soil. But these are reasons to plan carefully, not excuses to dismiss the whole idea out of hand.

I recognise that this proposal may sound unusual coming from a soldier, not an airman. Yet, having sought advice from a well-informed air-power expert, I believe Nato should urgently consider a defensive mission capable of protecting substantial parts of Ukraine while minimising the danger to allied aircraft and avoiding escalatory actions. In particular the F-35 stealth fighter is in service with various European nations. Its advanced sensors and stealth capabilities should be considered alongside those of other allied aircraft. Its stealth characteristics would make it difficult for Russian missile batteries to engage, especially at longer ranges.

The F-35 and other Western fighters can launch the long-ranging AMRAAM air-to-air missile, permitting them to stay further from the Russian air defences. At around $2m apiece for export sales, the AMRAAM is expensive. But war is expensive. The human cost of doing nothing is incalculable.

Such a mission would require a clear mandate, agreed rules of engagement and close coordination between allies. Its purpose would be to intercept threats to Ukrainian civilians, not to attack Russia. No one should pretend the risks are negligible. But neither should we pretend that the present approach is protecting Ukrainians adequately. This approach will make Ukraine a harder target and add an element of deterrence. We can also send more aid to Ukraine’s civilians and help with repairs and redundancy to keep the lights on and the furnaces burning.

If Putin’s ground campaign continues to fail and his attempt to freeze Ukraine into submission also falters, the Kremlin’s options will narrow. That could help bring Moscow to negotiations and give Ukraine a better chance of securing a just peace from a position of strength.

In Syria, we watched Russian aircraft terrorise civilians while the West debated the risks of intervention. I still remember that little boy in Aleppo, and wonder how many lives might have been saved had we acted.

We have an opportunity to learn from that failure. Another Ukrainian winter must not become another Syrian tragedy. Nato should put every credible defensive option on the table now. The capability exists; what is needed is the political will to use it wisely.