Tag Archives: Vladimir Putin

Britain, Europe, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Kyiv’s allies should avoid Putin’s entrapment

PROPOSED UKRAINE CEASEFIRE

PUTTING a stop to the killing in Ukraine is a highly desirable aim. A permanent end to the war would be a truly great achievement. Who on this earth would not welcome an agreement that stopped Russia’s daily slaughter of civilians and its destruction of Ukraine’s cities, and which would allow millions of displaced people to return home? As history clearly shows, peace at any price is no peace at all. In his untutored haste, Donald Trump risks rushing into a bad deal with Vladimir Putin that could set the stage for renewed conflict in Ukraine and other vulnerable countries bordering Russia and for an overall weakening of Europe’s security.

The proposed 30-day truce under discussion between the US and Russia entails a complete halt to fighting and temporary freezing of the frontlines in eastern Ukraine. It makes provision for the exchange of prisoners of war, release of civilian detainees, and the return from Russia of abducted Ukrainian children. The truce could be extended beyond the initial period. But Putin is adamant that, before it even begins, many complex, longer-term issues must be addressed, including the most fundamental point of all: Ukraine’s future as an independent, sovereign state.

This attempt by the Russian president to set highly problematic conditions must be firmly resisted by Trump and western leaders. As Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky says, it is a transparent bid to delay and manipulate the negotiations and win broader concessions, while allowing Moscow’s forces time to pursue battlefield gains, particularly in Russia’s contested Kursk region. It is not reasonable to insist on a halt to military aid to Kyiv during a truce. Putin’s demand that the historical “root causes” of the conflict be examined is a cynical ploy and trap, set to gain wider advantage.

Familiar tactics. Putin raises hopes of a breakthrough, then finds reasons why it must remain elusive. He tells untruths about the situation at the front, as in his fabricated claim that Ukrainian troops are encircled in Kursk. He flatters and plays Trump to his own tune, congratulating him for “doing everything” for peace and exploiting the US president’s ego-driven desire to keep his promise to end the war. Putin is brutally clear about his war aims: a neutral, disarmed Ukraine led by a Moscow-friendly government. His wider objective is an end to international ostracism, the lifting of punitive sanctions, and a remaking of Europe’s security architecture to suit his post-Soviet vision. All this to be achieved by a dramatic reset in US-Russia relations, as gaily and inexplicably offered, by his comrade in the White House.

Before making more unforced concessions, Trump should study very carefully this threatening agenda. He should remember this war would end today if Putin wished. He should understand the Russian bully does not want peace; he wants victory. He should stop at once regurgitating Russian propaganda. Most of all, he should stop his cruel persecution and intimidation of Zelensky and start applying substantial, painful pressure on Russia to halt its illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine. The fact that Trump is unlikely to do any of this goes to the heart of the problems surrounding the talks. For all his self-important bluster and insincere compassion, the “master dealmaker” does not have a plan extending beyond an immediate halt to the gunfire. Putin certainly does.

Trump’s optimistic prediction that a good agreement can be reached has little basis in fact. Britain, at least, is aware of this. Sir Keir Starmer says Putin is not serious about peace and should stop “playing games”. The PM’s latest attempt to rally European and other allies around a ceasefire deal backed by credible, in-theatre security guarantees is worthwhile. His “coalition of the willing” proposal, for example, is a key feature.

But Sir Keir surely knows that Trump’s mishandling of the negotiations so far, and his daily attempts to win personal credit for imaginary progress, as well as his persistent exclusion of the Ukrainians and his biased pressurising of Kyiv (but not Moscow), is unlikely to end well. No peacekeeping force, whether under a NATO, EU, or UN flag, can be deployed in Ukraine without viable security guarantees, principally from the US – which Trump withholds. Nor can it happen without Putin’s consent – and he is vehemently opposed.

The evident danger for Britain and Europe is that they may be strong-armed by Washington into endorsing and policing a flawed, short-term ceasefire cooked up by Trump and Putin that does not serve, and potentially undermines, their long-term objective: securing a free, sovereign Ukraine and putting a stop to Russian aggression. The dialogue between Putin and Trump is at an early stage, but who knows what Trump will give away next in his haste to claim the prestigious mantle of Nobel peacemaker, shaft his old foe Zelensky and appease his ex-KGB crony?

Trump has already told Ukraine it must accept the loss of occupied territory in the east and Crimea. He has already dashed its NATO membership hopes. He has already cut military aid and intelligence assistance once, refused to guarantee the peace, and publicly shamed and humiliated Zelensky in front of the world. And if a ceasefire fails to materialise, it’s a safe bet Trump will find a way to blame Kyiv.

Trump is no honest broker. He is no friend to Ukraine or Europe. Like Putin, he cannot be trusted to build or honour a just and lasting peace. A truce, on fair and reasonable terms, that Kyiv can freely accept, and that can be adequately monitored and effectively enforced, would be the way to proceed. In its absence, Ukraine must fight on with the support of Britain and other coalition partners.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Europe, European Union, France, Government, NATO, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Europe can deal with America’s perfidy

A NEW WORLD ORDER

Intro: Europe is stepping up. If it perseveres, and its leaders keep their promises, then it will be better able to deter Russia on its own – and survive in a reordered and more hostile world

A WATERSHED moment is upon us as Britain and the entire European continent faces a turning point, a second Zeitenwende, and a new world order. Whichever turn of phrase best describes the dramatic shifts unfolding since Donald Trump began his second US presidential term in January, one thing is certain: nothing will be the same again. The key question now is what, in practical terms, Europe can and will do to meet this challenge. Is this paradigm shift in the world order Europe’s moment, when it finally comes of age as a global player? Or will the EU and its close neighbours collectively fail to rise to the occasion, condemning their citizens to an era of domination by bigger and more determined rapacious powers?

With incautious recklessness, Donald Trump is in the process of attempting to do three extraordinary things. First, he is trying to force Ukraine, which has spent more than three years under murderous assault, to accept a “peace deal” on inimical terms dictated by himself and the aggressor, Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Second, in a stunning reversal of US policy, he is seeking a rapprochement with Moscow that includes re-establishing full political and diplomatic relations, lifting sanctions and launching joint economic partnerships. Third, he is telling Europeans they must henceforth defend themselves; that the US, in effect, is no longer a loyal, reliable partner or even necessarily a friend, and that NATO, for 76 years the solid bedrock of transatlantic security, is dispensable.

European leaders are broadly united in their alarm at all three of these unwise, irrational, and dangerous interventions. At the same time, most accept that even if Trump didn’t hold office, a change in the balance of US-Europe relations is inescapable and more than overdue. In a national address, Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, summed up the position well: “Europe’s future should not be decided in Washington or Moscow,” he said. “The war in Ukraine… continues with the same intensity [but] the US, our ally, has changed its position.” As a result, Europe was entering a new era of self-reliance.

Mr Macron, like many others, was accused of appeasing Putin in 2022. He has learned better since. He warns now that Russian imperialist aggression “knows no borders”, directly threatening France and Europe. This is not just talk. He has shown imaginative leadership, producing a tentative plan for a staged ceasefire that has Ukrainian support, lobbying, flattering, and even correcting Trump to his face in the Oval Office. The French president has also been promoting an Anglo-French proposal to deploy a European “assurance force” in Ukraine composed of a so-called coalition of the willing.

There has been repeated recourse in recent days for Europe to “step up” as a matter of urgency. Germany surprised many with a positive leap into the future. A country that nurtures visceral horror of debt announced a spectacular U-turn of its own – the amending of its Basic Law to permit multibillion-euro investments in defence and national infrastructure. Quite remarkable given that Friedrich Merz, the Christian Democrat who held off the far-right to win last month’s federal election, has a reputation as a fiscal conservative. Not any more. And he has gone further even than Macron in urging Europe’s “independence” from the US and pledging ongoing, expanded military aid for Kyiv. Other European leaders, notably Donald Tusk, have “stepped up” in commendable ways, too. Poland’s prime minister is in an unenviable position. A strong adherent in the transatlantic alliance, he, like so many others, now must feel utterly betrayed by Trump. There is a real sense of perfidy in the air. NATO is a crucial shield for Poland, as it is for the three neighbouring Baltic republics.

Keir Starmer also recognises the historic nature of this moment, and has risen to meet it. He has worked assiduously and with due care to restrain Trump’s worst instincts. His evident contempt, displayed in the House of Commons, for the ignorant comments of US vice-president JD Vance about “random countries” showed he is not afraid to push back. The PM’s collaboration with EU leaders is a very welcome post-Brexit development that should be extended beyond defence and security. Yet like them, the UK faces daunting hurdles.

These challenges – on reducing Europe’s reliance on America, boosting its defences, and maintaining support for Ukraine – were the focus of the emergency EU summit. As is often the case in Brussels, the results were mixed. New overall defence spending of £670bn was agreed. But whether it ever materialises will depend on national governments’ willingness to borrow. The usual divisions were apparent – such as Hungary blocking a joint statement on Ukraine. Within NATO, most member states, like Britain, are now committing to higher spending. Non-EU countries, such as Norway, are also piling in. Oslo is belatedly, yet commendably, doubling its aid to Kyiv.

Europe is stepping up. If it perseveres, and its leaders keep their promises, then it will be better able to deter Russia on its own – and survive in a reordered and more hostile world. But how effective Europe can be in rescuing Ukraine in the short term from a developing Trump-Putin axis is in serious doubt. Trump still refuses to provide Kyiv with meaningful post-war security guarantees. His suspension of military aid, mapping, and intelligence assistance is encouraging Russia to intensify attacks. More civilians are dying each day because of Trump’s treachery. With each passing day, Ukraine is further brutalised and degraded. A just peace looks further away than ever. 

Standard
Britain, Defence, Europe, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, United States

A defining moment for the future of Europe

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.

Standard