The poisoning by nerve agent of Sergei and Yulia Skripal has dealt a blow to Russia’s relations with the UK, Europe, Nato and beyond. The bombing campaign in Syria over the weekend has sharpened the confrontation. And things could get even worse. With further sanctions being discussed as we write, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, is talking about the cold war being “back with a vengeance”.

Yet the situation today is very different, and in some respects even more dangerous. After the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, both sides knew, and largely accepted, the red lines of the other. That is not the case today. Rather, a return to cold war mentalities and habits of confrontation is taking place without clear rules of the road. New cyber capabilities, emerging space weapons and prompt conventional strike systems are offering unprecedented opportunities for aggressive behaviour, unfettered by rules developed in another age. International agreements that were painstakingly agreed in better times – for example limiting nuclear armaments – are now under threat.

Macron’s bid to look strong on Syria could weaken him in France | Pauline Bock Read more

Mutual isolation is not an option. We are simply too dependent on each other in economic and security terms. Russia needs access to foreign markets for its exports, and for the technologies needed to fuel its future economic development. The UK, for its part, has benefited from Russian investments, and from the contribution to its society made by many resident Russians. British and Russians fought shoulder to shoulder in the two great wars of the last century. Even if these interdependencies were now to fray and the history of our brotherhood in arms was nearly forgotten, the reality of the nuclear age is that neither of our countries can be safe unless both are safe. For all the publicity given to new weapons systems, the fundamental technical reality of mutually assured destruction (Mad) has not changed for the past half century – between Russia and the US, but also between Russia and the UK. The odds are that it will not change in any foreseeable future.

Over the past two years, our institutes, the Russian International Affairs Council and the Royal United Services Institute, have been organising a dialogue for non-governmental experts on security issues, designed to discuss ways in which the relationship between our two countries can be better managed. While the new realities created by the Skripal case have inevitably rendered some of our recommendations impossible to carry out in the immediate term, their underlying logic remains.

In the difficult period that now lies ahead, it will be vital to keep channels of communication open. Further crises are almost certain to occur. But each crisis – like each unhappy family – will be unhappy in its own way, and will bring its own dangers and perhaps, in some cases, opportunities. Maintaining routes through which countries can talk frankly with each other – both at a political and operational level – is most important when their relations are at their worst.

Reliable communication channels between the military forces of Russia and Nato have also become more vital now that they are facing off against each other more frequently. The hotline between the US and Russia in Syria is a good example in this regard, and is going to become even more relevant if the conflict in Syria continues to escalate. The UK and Russia recently agreed to renew and improve their incidents at sea agreement, and this might be used as a model for new “incidents in the air” agreements to reduce the risks of dangerous manoeuvres leading to major accidents. As the scale and incidence of major military exercises increases, more needs to be done to provide assurance that these could not be used as cover for more aggressive activity.

Relations between Russia and the UK have taken a hard knock from recent events. It will not be easy to repair the damage

One of the casualties of the worsening of relations between our countries could be the further weakening of the major arms control agreements reached at the end of the cold war – in relation to both nuclear and chemical weapons. The collapse of the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty, agreed by presidents Gorbachev and Reagan in 1987, is now a growing risk. If that happened, it would not only be profoundly damaging in its own right, it would also make it more difficult to renew the New Start (strategic arms reduction) treaty on long-range arms, now the main cornerstone of bilateral nuclear arms control. The treaty was signed by presidents Obama and Medvedev in 2010 at a time when “reset” appeared, for a time, to be working.

Recent events – both in Salisbury and in Syria – also show the urgent attention that needs to be given to restoring the credibility of the chemical weapons convention.

Beyond these specific agreements, both of our countries face a range of common threats, from international terrorism, growing instability in Afghanistan, and powerful criminal networks. Working together on these will serve our common interest in countering these problems and provide security for our peoples.

Relations between Russia and the UK have taken a hard knock from recent events. It is not going to be easy to repair the damage that has been done. Yet it is precisely in these circumstances that frank and honest dialogue is more important than ever.

• Andrey Kortunov is director general of the Russian International Affairs Council; Malcolm Chalmers is deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute