It should go without saying that when a Kremlin spokesperson says that statements made by Liz Truss were behind Russia’s announcement to put their nuclear forces on ‘high alert’, one should take such sentiments with more than a pinch of salt. The Kremlin regularly deploys divisive statements to undermine the coherence of its opposition, a fact to which no-one should be blind.

But whatever the nature of Putin’s claims, it can’t be said that comments made by Britain’s Foreign Secretary are entirely irrelevant in the diplomatic breakdown over the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Her standing as a credible, serious operator in this confrontation is non-existent, undermined by her statements and actions—and such a lack of intelligence in the British Foreign Office is a danger in and of itself.

It was initially her suggestion that a failure to stop Russia in Ukraine could ‘lead to a broader conflict with NATO’ which was identified by the Russian government as precipitating Putin’s notice of a nuclear high alert. But being honest, they could have credibly picked from several examples with the same effect, such as her off-the-cuff support for international volunteers to join a Ukrainian ‘international brigade’ against Russia—a wildly inflammatory remark from which Downing Street is still desperately attempting to distance itself.

It is worth considering these comments for a moment. As was widely commented on at the time, her support for international volunteers for Ukraine’s resistance flies in the face of all established government policy toward international volunteers since the 1870 Foreign Enlistment Act, which bars any British subject from joining an army at conflict with a nation ‘at peace’ with Britain. Most recently, this law has been used against British volunteers to Kurdish resistance groups fighting ISIS and Turkey in Northern Iraq, seeing many democrats treated as terrorist agents, stripped of their citizenship and facing severe prison sentences.

Truss was clearly unaware of these obvious legal implications—and no doubt had also failed to consider whether or not such volunteers could be classed as legal combatants under the Geneva Convention, and thus granted the legal status of prisoners of war should they be captured in battle. Without such protections, individuals would not have the right to fair trial and would be stripped of their rights to humane treatment if captured fighting.

Furthermore, her support for these foreign battalions could quite easily be interpreted as an act of war in the same way the British government supporting or protecting a mercenary agency to carry out attacks would be. This risk is particularly acute given that, seemingly emboldened by her comments, reports have emerged of retired SAS officers journeying to Ukraine, financed by an anonymous European state, to fight Russia. Again, even the short-term consequences of her stance appear to have evaded Truss, with Downing Street’s press operations left to tidy up her mess.

Truss’ callous ignorance toward her ministerial detail has been matched by a grotesque grandstanding over the entire crisis. Images of her vainglorious poses in front of Ukrainian flags have rightly raised ire on social media, betraying inappropriate levels of personal ambition and ego amid the most dangerous period for world peace since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

But her reckless ignorance and rhetoric also degraded discourse around the crisis in the run-up to the Russian invasion. In a preposterous meeting with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, Truss turned up unprepared and seemingly without any detailed knowledge—not only of the crisis, but of basic geography. Referring to Russian troop movements along the Ukrainian border, a Russian source speaking to ITV following the meeting, in an account later verified by Downing Street, said that

‘The foreign secretary told Lavrov that “you are behaving aggressively” and Lavrov said “this is our territory. Do you recognise that Rostov and Voronezh is sovereign Russian territory?” The British foreign secretary said, “we will never recognise Russian sovereignty there.” And then the UK ambassador had to tell her that this is part of Russia.’

Following the meeting, a humiliated Truss was led out by Lavrov to the press lobby. There, merely feet away from her, he described the meeting as akin to ‘a conversation with a deaf person, who is here but doesn’t hear’. The affair was a diplomatic embarrassment for Britain—and a propaganda gift for the Russians, for whom Truss is increasingly a meme representing an incompetent and ignorant British administration.

To make these criticisms of Truss is not to belittle or understate the criminal acts of the Russian state in its invasion of Ukraine. But during such a perilous moment for humanity, it is an active danger for Britain’s international representatives to be acting like children playing with matches.

If they were even halfway serious about scaling down from a potential nuclear catastrophe for the planet, the Conservative Party would be acting immediately to recognise the immense liability that Liz Truss represents—and if removing her from her post is too much to expect, for the sake of the country, if not the world, her voice should at least be muted.