THERE is every reason to be increasingly concerned about the escalation of the civil war in Syria.

Russia is stepping up its supply of anti-aircraft missiles to government forces at the same time that pressure from Britain and France in particular has led to the lifting of the European Union’s embargo preventing arms reaching the Syrian rebels.

Russia talks of its action being aimed at deterring foreign intervention from “hotheads” and it is clear that there are divisions within the EU over whether the arms embargo should have been reinforced or lifted.

It does not add up to a strong and cohesive message from Europe and we share the concerns of other EU countries that lifting the arms embargo might end up being counterproductive.

In the unpredictable context of a civil war, it is impossible to be confident about assurances from the British and French governments that weapons will only be directed to the more moderate rebel groups. How can anyone be sure that a greater supply of arms in a war zone will not filter down to the more radical elements among the rebels?

Britain and France may have forced the issue for now but it is a divided Europe which is standing up, unsteadily, to the Assad regime. And should that regime fall, there are strong arguments that pumping more weapons into an unstable country may simply lead to further fighting among the factions which are left.

We do not envy the complex decisions which are having to be taken but it is clear that Britain should proceed with extreme caution.