Nato is the hot potato that continues to create confusion at a volatile time - Patrick Mercer

Then suggesting that the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would be the most vulnerable NATO members to being attacked, he continued, “That is most likely the way this will progress and (we must) deter them” by “NATO, collectively, being so strong that the Russians will never do this.”

Whilst the western media wrote some headlines which were shocked but broadly supportive, both the Ukrainian and Russian media had an absolute field day. For Kiev, the idea that the boss of NATO thought that Russia was going to be in a fit state to attack an Allied country any time soon clearly suggested Mr Rutte had no confidence that Ukraine could win.

And they have a point. Russia is widely believed to have her hands full just fighting Ukraine; could Mark Rutte be implying that the Kremlin would open a second front despite the state of her economy and mounting casualties? Well, that certainly wasn’t the way it was interpreted in Ukraine.

There were howls of dismay: first it seemed that the USA had deserted them and then it looked as though the NATO nations were simply waiting for Kiev to lose whilst watching the Russian bear preparing for its next, bloody onslaught.

Needless to say, Moscow wasn’t slow to join in. They went further than the Ukrainian commentators observing that Mr Rutte’s comments didn’t just presage Moscow’s victory, but also foresaw the latest embarrassment for NATO, hard on the heels of Mr Biden’s shameful withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2022.

And then, as if to rubbish the whole idea, the Kremlin wheeled out Dmitry Medvedev - a former Russian president who’s often used to lace things with a bit of heavy, Muscovite humour - who said, “He sees collusion between China and Russia over Taiwan, and then a Russian attack on Europe… Rutte has clearly gorged on too many of the magic mushrooms beloved by the Dutch!”

The NATO chief saying such things seems particularly clumsy when Ukraine’s understandable paranoia about NATO membership is born in mind. Just a few days before Mr Rutte’s claims about an impending third world war, Georgy Tikhy, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman, had been interviewed on YouTube concerning the progress of talks with the Allies about his country’s entry into NATO.

Depressingly, he said: “All the arguments and counterarguments have already been presented, and each new round of negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to NATO goes in circles.”

The discussions “have become, to put it simply, very toxic,”

This pessimism is set, of course, against President Donald Trump’s recent, unambiguous statement that Kiev could “forget about” joining NATO and also his comments just as the NATO summit was about to start in The Hague last month.

Journalists and commentators have always tried to tie the US President down about Article 5 - NATO’s cardinal principle - and the subject came up again as he was travelling to the summit. He replied “There's numerous definitions of Article 5… But I’m committed to being (the other members of NATO’s) friend."

The President’s right, of course. Article 5 states that if one NATO member is attacked, all the others are required to take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force" which is very far from the usual, cast iron understanding that a single assault will cause hellfire to be instantly rained down on the aggressor by everyone else.

Whatever the reality, it was deeply worrying for Mr Trump to cast doubt upon the one thing that is widely assumed to unite NATO. Peter Hitchens, the respected Mail on Sunday journalist, even went so far as to write that NATO had effectively come to an end.

Coming on the back of all this turmoil and uncertainty that it has caused Kiev, were the latest utterances from Washington earlier this week. It’s been very hard to predict what Donald Trump was going to say about Ukraine and, indeed, which of the antagonists he’s going to appear to support next. Well, this week he seems to be on Mr Zelensky’s side.

Apparently exasperated by President Putin’s complete refusal to make any compromises that might give hope for realistic peace negotiations, Mr Trump gave Moscow 50 days to come to the table or face further, crippling sanctions. He also promised a flood of the latest weaponry which America would sell to Europe allowing their kit to be handed over to Kiev.

Now, much of our media trumpeted this as a breakthrough: The Donald had finally seen the light. Really? Russian forces are on a roll at the moment and may have conquered the crucial parts of the Donbas within 50 days. Perhaps Mr Trump thinks that Moscow will have achieved all it needs to by then and suddenly become reasonable?

Similarly, America is now to sell weapons to the cash strapped, battered and divided West, but how quickly and effectively could they arm Kiev’s troops? This is no longer aid, it’s now just a hard nosed deal.

Surely, Ukraine deserves better than all this chicanery.

Patrick Mercer is a former MP for Newark and Army colonel.