EUROPEAN SECURITY

EIGHTY years ago, Franklin D Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill met in the Crimean city of Yalta to determine the future shape of Europe.

Together the United States, Soviet Union, and Britain had defeated Nazism. The symposium was intended to deliver lasting peace and security on the continent.

There were echoes of that momentous occasion this week when representatives of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin gathered in Saudi Arabia to thrash out an agreement over the future of Ukraine.

Significantly, Ukraine itself is excluded from the talks, leading to suspicions of an impending sell-out.

For Putin it’s a diplomatic coup. A pariah just a few weeks ago, the swaggering and revanchist bully is back at the global top table.

For President Trump it’s a signal that America will no longer bankroll Europe’s security without getting something in return.

He has made it clear he wants an end to this war and that if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky blocks his plan for peace, military aid may be withdrawn.

In addition, he says the aid already provided by the US should be repaid by Ukraine handing over oil, gas, mineral rights, and infrastructure that totals around £400billion.

Mr Zelensky had himself raised the idea of giving America a direct stake in Ukraine’s lucrative mineral industry in the hope it would deter Putin from attacking in a similar vein again.              

But what Mr Trump is asking for is more than the reparations demanded of Germany after the First World War. Battle-ravaged Ukraine simply couldn’t pay.

This is a defining moment for the future of Europe and NATO. If Mr Zelensky rejects a Trump/Putin deal, European nations must decide whether to keep backing the war effort without US support. The situation is becoming more precarious and volatile by the day.

They have only themselves to blame for this dilemma. For decades they have spent far too little on defence, expecting the US to ride to the rescue in times of trouble.

President Trump is demanding, not unreasonably, that from now on they bear more of their own security burden.

Sir Keir Starmer has been talking tough in recent days, saying Britian is ready to put “boots on the ground” to guarantee any peace deal. Such an announcement has not gone down well with Moscow or with some of our NATO allies including Germany who are furious that such a suggestion has been made when a peace deal hasn’t yet been brokered. Nevertheless, is the UK actually capable of doing so, given the depleted state of our armed services after years of draconian cuts?

The incumbent government in Britain still hasn’t made good its pledge to spend 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence. This is the minimum required. Most military experts say it should be at least 3 per cent.

There’s no denying that money is tight, especially after the Labour Government’s disastrous budget increased the tax burden on families and businesses by £40billion. Imposing even higher taxes would send Britain into a deep depression.

Borrowing to boost defence would increase already stratospheric debt repayments, so the only sensible option is to cut the bloated, unproductive state. For the sake of national and European security Keir Starmer has no other option. Many in the public sector are likely to be offended when the axe starts to swing.

If Yalta taught the world anything, it’s that Russia can’t be trusted. Within weeks of that conference it had reneged on all its commitments to allow the occupied nations self-determination and the Iron Curtain came crashing down.

In the words of Roosevelt’s ambassador to Moscow, Stalin’s aim was “the establishment of totalitarianism, ending personal liberty, and democracy as we know it”.

Putin’s ambitions are not dissimilar. If he is allowed any sort of victory in Ukraine, it will not be long before he moves on to menace another European democracy.