Can Europe fund Ukrainian security through debt? Photo: Peter Nicholls/Getty.
Donald Trump wants peace, now. Volodymyr Zelensky and his European supporters want victory, later. This is what the very public disagreement in the Oval Office on Friday was all about. Peace through victory — essentially the Second World War model — is the lens through which virtually all European leaders, and most commentators view the Russia-Ukraine conflict. America sees it differently.
The absurdity of the European position was perhaps best captured in its full hubris last year by the historian and writer Anne Applebaum when she won a prestigious German peace prize. During her acceptance speech, she maintained that victory was more important than peace, asserting that the West’s ultimate goal should be regime change in Russia. “We must help Ukrainians achieve victory, and not only for the sake of Ukraine,” she said. “If there is even a small chance that military defeat could help end this horrific cult of violence in Russia, just as military defeat brought an end to the cult of violence in Germany, we should take it.” This is the Second World War model in its purest form.
But most wars do not fit that pattern, they generally end with complex peace deals. A far better model for the current conflict would be the Thirty Years’ war that raged in central Europe from 1618 until 1648, and which pitched the Holy Roman Empire against the protestant towns and municipalities supported by Sweden and the Netherlands.
That war did not end with glorious victory for any of the involved parties. But it did end with one of the most important peace treaties of all time: the Peace of Westphalia. One of the important principles it established was that of non-interference in other countries’ domestic policies. It laid the foundation of the modern nation state and marked the beginning of a golden age of European politics, art and science.
Russia’s conflict with the West has gone on for almost as long. Vladimir Putin has waged war in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria in an attempt to regain those spheres of influence lost after the breakdown of communism in 1990. And without some sort of peace deal, Putin is certain to keep pressing the Russian advantage, with a strategy that may yet involve the Baltic states and Poland.
It is dangerous for Europe to insist, instead, on victory. For while Trump has talked a lot of nonsense about Zelensky and the war, he is right in one critical aspect. Without America, there is no road to victory for Ukraine. This is not primarily about weapons, ammunition, and financial aid, but about satellite support and intelligence. If the US were to switch off the satellites and stop the flow of information, the Europeans have no way of plugging the gap. Without the US, it’s over for Ukraine.
Not only has Europe failed to grasp this, it has also failed to map out a strategic path to victory. Politicians, journalists and academics parrot meaninglessly, that Europe will do whatever it takes. Or they assert that Putin will blink first, if only the war goes on for a little while longer. Or that the Russian economy will collapse as sanctions take their toll. But solidarity is not a strategy. Virtue signalling is not a strategy. Sanctions are not a strategy if the primary goal is to minimise the pain to ourselves.
A strategy is something that is costed, politically stress-tested, and that responds to different scenarios. A strategy has primary targets, together with an agreed definition of second-best outcomes. A strategy also has a clear exit route mapped out. Europe has nothing.
A credible path for a Ukrainian victory would have started three years ago with a massive expansion of military spending by all European Nato countries. There should have been an immediate expansion of military industrial capacity, which has been depleted in most western countries, and a concerted political campaign to organise trade-offs between other spending priorities and defence.
But Germany, France and the UK, those European countries which matter most, didn’t act back then and now all lack the fiscal headroom to corral such an approach. We have not figured out how we can support Ukraine and stay solvent. The most desperate idea has been to plunder Russia’s $300m in foreign reserves, which are currently frozen. Clearly this hasn’t been thought through. If that were to happen, the risk is that Euroclear, the Brussels-based financial depository where the reserves are held, could face a slew of lawsuits and even bankruptcy. The EU would be forced to spend tens of billions to recapitalise the company — potentially costing more than the aid to Ukraine. The trust in Europe as a safe place for assets would be lost and we could end up with a full-blown financial crisis.
Without a costed exit strategy now, and as America turns away, how then is the EU to defend itself in the future? Even if the EU were to set itself an agreed trajectory towards military spending of 3% of GDP by 2030, and to pool their procurement to make defence spending more efficient, I struggle to see how the continent can find the unity and determination to replace the US as guarantor for our security. Kaja Kallas, High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, laughably exemplified Europe’s myopic attitude to strategy when she said “the free world needs a new leader”. This is preposterous, typical of European grandstanding. The EU, with its veto rights, its qualified majority voting and the explicit exclusion of defence from the single market, is structurally unsuited for foreign and security policy in a Hobbesian world. We couldn’t be further from a Westphalia moment.
We have been here before. Angela Merkel talked about European strategic independence from the US in 2018, after a disastrous meeting with Trump. But she did not put any political capital behind the idea because she did not want to pay the political price.
A structural increase in defence spending would require sacrifice. The US spends 3.5% of its GDP on defence. In 2023, the 27 EU countries spent an average of 1.6% of EU GDP. This gap of almost 2 percentage points arises because we Europeans spend the money on other things. Germany has a gold-plated social system. People are entitled to a basic citizens’ income whether they work or not. Germany has also given itself a budget of €150bn for the energy transition. The US, meanwhile, has food stamps, and no net zero policy. You cannot do it all. There are necessary trade-offs involved which the Europeans have not even begun to discuss.
In their desperation, though, the Europeans are now talking about funding an increase in defence spending through debt. This is economically insane. For that reason, it will also fail to achieve its declared goal — to deter an enemy attack. The credibility of our security policies depends on a willingness to finance them. Defence spending should be funded through current revenue. If you do try to do this through debt, the bond vigilantes are going to get you before Putin does.
Putin must surely see that Europe is desperate. The UK only managed to increase its 2027 military spending target from 2.3% to 2.5% by cutting its foreign aid budget. Meanwhile, France’s divided politics has left the country on an unsustainable fiscal path, even as the Germans are grappling with their own fiscal rules. This molly-coddled, self-absorbed Europe is not about to fight and win a war against Russia. We applaud speeches calling for regime change in Moscow. But we want someone else to do it for us just like in the Second World War. The difference is that back then, America was willing to play a progressively stronger part. This time, the US is in open retreat.
If the Europeans were smart, they would take Zelensky to one side, without the cameras, and tell him that the game is up, and that he should cut a deal with Trump now. They should insist that what the President was trying to negotiate before the Oval Office showdown is as good as anything Ukraine will ever get — the minerals deal will keep the US engaged in the besieged nation’s future. For now, though, it seems clear that Europe and Ukraine are currently asking for more than Trump is willing to concede, especially since the White House is convinced that they aren’t ready for peace.
Seeking victory, Zelensky walked straight into a trap in the White House last week. He may have been more at ease with his European friends in London who cajoled him with warm words and big promises. But their shared illusion that there is a path to victory will inevitably lead to a more dangerous future for us all.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeDing Ding Ding. Perhaps Münchau is the smartest German alive.
The second-to-last paragraph is the crux of the current reality. Now we will find out whether the European Leaders care more about Europe than they do about scoring petty political points against Trump. Any bets?
…thank God. A sober, sane analysis at last. Even though the path forward from it is not a pleasant one for Western sensibilities of whatever persuasion.
Thank you for this realistic assessment of what happened between Trump and Zelensky.
I watched a couple of subsequent news reports about Zelensky’s meeting with UK prime minister Starmer, then with various European leaders. I was struck by the amount of hugging. Everyone hugged everyone else, over and over. I sensed someone might faint dead away (although not, perhaps, Georgia Meloni: she doesn’t seem like the fainting type).
I was reminded of a group of girls in the playground. One girl had the courage/temerity to challenge the alpha female, and got her face slapped for her audacity. Then she runs back to the other beta females for hugs and cuddles, and to plan revenge. Only no one cares, because everyone knows they’re not capable of revenge.
It turns out zelensky had a meeting in Washington with a group of senators before he went to the White House. We will never know what happened at that meeting, but zelensky’s demeanor certainly changed.
This is what Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) posted on Twitter. “Just finished a meeting with President Zelensky here in Washington. He confirmed that the Ukrainian people will not support a fake peace agreement where Putin gets everything he wants and there are no security arrangements for Ukraine.”
Murphy’s office posted this on X at 11:15 a.m. Friday. Forty minutes later, Zelensky arrived at the White House.
I think Volodymyr Zelensky has done a decent job considering his lack of seasoning experience. But as you point out he’s hearing from his supporters in the US that he should hold a hard line, so he is doing that. Same with his supporters in Europe. He’s just not grasping what he’s dealing with.
Donald Trump is right about one thing. Ukraine needs to come to grips with the fact that Russia is not going to be punished and they will have to mend fences with Vladimir Putin. He’s their neighbor, and neighbors need to work things out.
I feel bad for zelensky. He’s a true patriot IMO and Ukraine has fought fiercely against an aggressor. I do wonder if he’s out of his depth. He seems to flip flop a lot and is persuaded by other political leaders, who are ultimately serving their own agenda.
It is hard not to like Volodymyr Zelensky’s patriotism, but comparisons to Winston Churchill do seem apt, at least in the fact that both men seemed better suited for war than peace. Remember that Winston Churchill was voted out during World War 2 even before Japan surrendered.
I remembered an article from a year and a half ago that made the point that Vladimir Zelensky was probably not the Ukrainian leader to take his people into the promised land of peace. Rereading that article now it has aged well.
https://harpers.org/archive/2023/10/the-tragedy-of-volodymyr-zelensky/
Lex Friedman said much the same thing after their interview together. Paraphrasing but the gist of it was, lots of it was, lots of respect for Zelensky, definitely a patriot and a great leader for Ukraine for the war, but not the man to deliver peace.
Zelenskys a crook who essentially destroyed his country. Ukraine can do without that type of cocaine fuelled patriotism.
He should have signed the peace agreement in ‘22. The one he might get to sign next will be far worse and will have cost 1.5 million lives.
The Minsk Agreements, in 2014 & 2015, should have been signed, before Zelensky appeared on the scene.
Merkel admitted they were just so the West could re-arm.
If only that was true.
But West did not rearm and Merkel signed Nord Stream deal after Russia invaded Crimea.
Merkel is coming with all sort of justifications for her idiotic policies.
Was that 2022 peace agreement the one which prompted Boris Johnson to rush to Ukraine in person and prevail on Zelensky not to sign, because the US wanted the conflict to continue?!
Talk about being pushed this way and that. I’m reminded of that biblical advice to “put not your trust in princes”, because when a new “prince” comes along, with a policy diametrically opposed to the previous one then where do you stand?
Boris and Biden have a lot to answer for in the amount of blood shed by their actions.
… prompted Boris Johnson to rush to Ukraine in person and prevail on Zelensky not to sign, because the US wanted the conflict to continue?!” Exactly right and I’m very surprised this isn’t common knowledge.
He has made his fortune so should now bow out or follow Trump’s lead in peace talks.
Trump was trying to get Zelensky to tone down on the insults to Putin as this was not smoothing the path to peace talks but Zelensky seems to think talking big is all that’s needed. He has made a fortune from this war courtesy of Biden’s money laundering so should just try for peace with Trump’s help now.
Not just senators, it is reported that Biden’s man Blinken was also there. If you are hoping for a fruitful meeting with Trump, would you stop off for a pep talk from his political opponents along the way?
Truly juvenile.
A welcome bringing together of all the salient points that i suspect many of us have already figured out, albeit in not quite as much detail.
The biggest question is why those we’ve entrusted (via the ballot box) with making the necessary decisions to secure our futures aren’t able to work these things out, when reality is staring them in the face; thus, our futures are impoverished and endangered.
Having said that, Zelensky is making noises about going along with the Trump deal, which makes his posturing in the Oval Office all the more injudicious. No doubt he’s had his wounds licked in Downing Street and at Sandringham over the weekend.
He just needs to get on with it now, having literally nothing to fall back on but the courage of a population who might quickly turn against him. That, at least, would grant Europe some breathing space with which to begin to re-arm, a process that would take us well into the next decade.
The current mood music from the European leaders and the Labour government, seems to be a scenario whereby they club together with a few billions each and they sleepwalk into a direct military engagement with Russian troops in the territories in Ukraine that the Russians have occupied, via “peacekeeping forces”. I can imagine scenarios where Trump allows this to happen, because he would care much less if it is Europe rather than the US that is burning their money in the war, and he knows he can pick up the pieces and the resources he is looking for on his terms at the end once Ukraine, Russia and Europe have all burned themselves out after a couple more years.
It is hardly discussed these days but Europeans somehow seem to have forgotten that Russia is a nuclear power – certainly that is how Starmer and Macron are behaving. Ukraine is not in NATO, but it would be perceived as a de-facto member by the Russians if European troops enter Ukraine. So for the European powers there is an even greater danger if Russia were to start losing the territory they have so far occupied. Putin in his old age is looking to secure his position in the eyes of Russian history. So he is not fully rational, and it is not at all beyond the bounds of possibility that he considers the nuclear option if he thinks Russia will be humiliated in Ukraine because of the European NATO countries. At that point anything the rest of the world says, including the Chinese, will fall on deaf ears. To my eyes, what the Europeans are upto looks incredibly stupid and dangerous.
The nuclear option is more than a possibility. It is official Russian doctrine to resort to tactical nukes as soon as a foreign aggressor pokes their nose into Russian territory!
Russia is also, permanently by the ineluctable reality of geography, Europe’s neighbour. Where is a Metternich when you need one?
All these eurocrats who have never been producers in their entire lives believe they can just fiat whatever they wish. When doesn’t work – it never does – just have another summit and wish more.
I cannot help feel that the continued support for the war has more to do with the domestic political battles of Ukraines allies than any geo strategic considerations.
This is an excellent article but I disagree that Russia could pose a threat to any member of NATO, its military is exhausted and will take years to rebuild. Ukraine secured a victory when against the odds it prevented Russia from securing all of its Russian speaking territories, which based on the direction of their offensive in 2022, was surely the goal. Beyond that this is in essentially a very large and bloody border dispute, which will likely only end with the Russians claiming a dubious victory, when they have secured the whole of the Donbas. This victory will have been at an unacceptable cost and will do nothing to strengthen Russia strategically so why does the west fear this outcome so much?
My best theory is that the real fear in western capitals is that a victory for Russia, no matter how strategically insignificant, will be seen as a victory for right wing nationalism over left wing internationalism and will strengthen the growth of right wing political power on the continent. Even America, which saw certain sectors of its economy actually benefit from the conflict, largely became so deeply involved because Biden’s poll number nose dived after his Afghan debacle and another foreign policy defeat would have finished him off for certain. After that, with Ukraine seemingly in the ascendancy it became impossible to pull the plug.
I have great sympathy for the people of Ukraine but I cannot help but think that this war has been prolonged far beyond its utility for any of the sides involved, other than the European centrists, who are desperately clinging to power and feel they cannot sustain another defeat and this isn’t reason enough to continue to spill blood and treasure on the Ukrainian steps.
Great comment.
Quite possibly the definitive comment on the subject.
Great comment and thoughtful essay. I agree that the Ukraine invasion has actually exposed the military weakness of Russia. It’s laughable to think they would ever consider invading Poland.
gaslighting by the media , pushed by the various governments. Russia is an existential threat, no it isn’t , it’s weak , poor, facing demographic decline, Russia has never been weaker. But that’s contrary to the narrative they (MSM) push
This whole war has been a con job
Actually Russia has very strong military, and much larger now with a fully functional military industrial complex behind it that can out produce all of NATO in artillery shells and other necessary equipment. It’s also well trained, and has not been dying in large numbers or using North Korean troops. Those are all lies.
The slow attrition warfare has depleted Ukraine and Europe’s military equipment. Zelensky himself said about this time last year that they were outgunned 10 to 1 in artillery, and 30 to 1 in airpower. That has only gotten worse for Ukraine who has been pushed back at every turn.
What it seems the European media is doing here is setting up this idea that Ukraine could win the war, that it is close to defeating Russia, but Trump is coming along and going to pull the plug. They are setting up these lies perhaps so they can blame Trump and the peace he is pushing as the cause of the loss. Ukraine could have won it if it hadn’t been for Trump who betrayed them… The Russians were tottering, but Trump stood them back up…. That’s the narrative, and people all over Europe believe it all, because they trust the media who has lied and lied and lied and lied…
Prof Steven Cohen described this as Russophrenia: the idea that Russia is too weak to win in Ukraine if we provide enough support to Keeev, but simultaneously is strong enough to start taking over the rest of Europe (including NATO countries) if we don’t.
A lot of very intelligent Poles don’t find that ideas as laughable as you do. Might they know something you don’t?
This is unintentionally hilarious …
Good points.
Let me just add that many seem to forget that the war in Ukraine has been going on for 11 years, not 3. And that Russia’s military has been humbled over the decades. Russia is not fit to fight a real war, not even close. Otherwise the Ukraine war would have been won long ago.
Though Donald Trump has badly bungled the mediation he has undertaken, at least he has undertaken it. There’s every reason for both Russia and Ukraine to agree to a deal now. If Donald Trump were at his prime, he would likely come up with something spectacular. As he is not at his prime, something more mundane will have to do.
But I don’t see these negotiations falling apart. Even Donald Trump is not likely to let that happen.
You don’t understand what a war of attrition is do you. This is not a war of manoeuvre. Putin isn’t trying to take over Western Europe contrary to the lying MSM/deep state.
One of the SMO’s objectives is to end Ukraines military so that they can never attack Russian speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas again … this is being done.
Ukraine had the largest army in Europe. Today it’s pulling old men off the streets and putting them
In trenches after 2 weeks training. It hasn’t rotated a single soldier in 3 years. They are outnumbered now in parts of the front by 5/1. Why? Because somewhere around 7-800 Ukrainian men have been tragically killed or wounded.
We couldn’t fight a war like this. Remember, we couldn’t use our AirPower or tech … no way would our soldiers fight for years in trenches and be prepared to die in these numbers.
Policy wrt Russia since 1991 seems more about paying Russia back for ancient historic grievances and ending their influence in the mideast.
Putin indeed is not trying to take over Western Europe, even he is not that mad, but he is trying to take over Eastern Europe.
I see no evidence that Putin is trying to take over Eastern Europe. For what purpose? The Soviet Union tried to digest Eastern Europe and failed. Putin is a keen student of history. I suspect he has learned from the Soviet Union’s mistakes.
The first point of evidence is that he has so far directly invaded Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova. The second point is what he says about resurrecting the Russian Empire, something about a holy crusade so to do.
he’s had 25 years to do that, seems he leaving it late in the game. He wants the Black sea access, that was it. He has zero interest in Poland, Latvia
Indeed part of the peace deal could be getting rid of that anachronistic Baltic extension around Kaliningrad. Make it independent or part of Lithuania or Poland (according to the preferences of its residents).
Or even Germany? No, I can’t see Russia disgorging Kaliningrad under any circumstances short of crushing defeat, and that’s not going to happen.
The evidence you offer that Putin wishes to invade Eastern Europe is that he “invaded Georgia Ukraine and Moldova”
And yet when I look at Georgia and Moldova, they both appear to be independent countries. They’re far smaller and weaker than Ukraine is (was), so why aren’t they now oblasts in the Russian Federation?
We also know from the peace negotiations (that BoJo persuaded Zelenskiy to abort) that Russia was willing to withdraw as long as Ukraine was neutral, remained out of NATO, recognised Russian ownership of Crimea, and allowed the long-suffering Eastern Oblasts to become independent states.
So this is not about Russia invading Eastern Europe for the sheer joy of depleting her blood and treasure and making Eastern Europeans genuflect to the Kremlin, this is about the Russians’ decades-long promise to keep NATO out of Ukraine.
So you think that 2022 Russian “peace” proposal was a reasonable offer do you? Only sabotaged by Johnson? Zelensky only engaged in those talks because no-one at that stage had made a solid commitment of support to Ukraine. The moment it was offered Zelensky pulled out.
If you believe that conditions for Russian speakers in those eastern oblasts were unbearable then you are gullible and naive. Those independence movements there are a complete Russian creation.
Russia cares about NATO only in so far as Ukrainian NATO membership would put an end to Russia’s colonial dreams.
The evidence is clear in Sweden and Finland abandoning decades of neutrality. Or do you know something about Putin’s intentions that they don’t?
I don’t think the governments that made that (pointless) decision are going to last very long.
Really?
Maybe you should read his and his ideologues musings about NATO and Ukraine.
If Russia is such peaceful neighbour why did Finland and Sweden join NATO?
None of pro Russia clowns on here and elsewhere can answer this basic question.
Is he really
“Because somewhere around 7-800 Ukrainian men have been tragically killed or wounded” think a lot more than that have been killed or wounded.
Perhaps he missed out three zeros?
I don’t think anyone suggests that Putin is trying to take over Western Europe. If you mean by that West of Poland.
Do you include Poland and Baltic States in the West?
But if you read Putin statements re NATO and Ukraine since 2007 Munich conference at least, it has nothing to do with Donbass or Luhansk.
There was Ukrainian independence referendum in 1991 and both Donbass and Luhansk voted over 83% for being part of Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for that.
Please could we have an example of Trump having, in his prime, come up with “something spectacular”. Perhaps his spectacularly awful “deal” with the Taliban?
The Abraham Accords.
Well done Richard!
A nice big earner for his family so far!
Many believe Russia is “weak” because of the slow progress of the operation. Is it not likely that, because they are fighting where Russian-speaking citizens live (or lived), that the Russian forces are trying not to utterly destroy everything as they advance? Time is on Putin’s side, so it’s slow, steady but always grinding forward.
Given how they’ve destroyed everything they’ve touched to date, and are still relentlessly bombing other Ukrainian cities I don’t find that a credible hypothetical.
An excellent synopsis of the ‘state of play’, thank you.
Incidentally in all this furore of nationalism have the Ukrainians renamed the ‘steppes’, the steps?*
* As with Kiev or Kyiv.
The panic partly comes from the knowledge that Trump has not forgotten all the things said about him by the likes of Lammy and that Zelensky-style humiliation is waiting for them.
I’m rather surprised he has put up with Mandy, and I trust he will that put Lammy back in his box in no uncertain terms.
The man is an embarrassment to His Britannic Majesty’s Government.
Mandelson has the substance to run his own foreign policy in Washington which he has been given licence to do. This means backing Trump regardless.
Excellent, thank you.
Charles, HMG has been an embarrassment to the British people and our history though much of the post WW1 period- compare Pitt the Younger or Disraeli with Starmer and co.
Exactly, I couldn’t agree more, rather sadly!
We have had politicians coming out of our ears, but statesmen/women? Very thin on the ground.
He is an embarrassment to us. The Government would need to be self aware to be embarrassed.
There is a great deal of disagreement over whether Russia would pose a threat to Europe if there were a deal over Ukraine. I incline to the view that unfortunately Putin needs a war for his own political survival. The Russian economy is now no more or less a war economy with something like 10% of GDP being spent on defence. It will be impossible for Putin to simply switch that off.
I think that the figure is nearer 40% of Russia’s GDP spent on this war.
The official figures are about 6%. But that kind of low number wouldn’t be consistant with the narrative….
I am dubious about the real value of GDP as reported for any country, but if you believe whatever the Kremlin says about it you are touchingly innocent!
Reporters like Pepe Escobar report things like Russia is in the midst of a sort of social and economic renaissance with new trading partners, and new trade routes opening up Eastward because of BRICS expansion towards the East. Since every bit of reporting and narratives that our Western media tells us is true doesn’t seem to ever come true, perhaps he is more correct.
Russia stands to gain enormously from China’s New Silk Road initiative. For it to work, there will have to be (enforced?) stabilization of the region between China and the Med, transforming it from the world’s most volatile region into a potentially prosperous trade route. And once trade was flourishing it would benefit countries to the north and south of the trade route, as well as China, Israel and/or Turkey.
I think much brainpower is being exercised in the USA on how they can cash in on (and ideally control – the traditional American way) this development.
In this context, Biden’s absurd rushed withdrawl from Afghanistan looks like a deliberate effort to destabilize the entire region.
He’d be counting on the end of the sanctions, even if only gradually eased in response to ongoing compliance, to kick start the economy again. And Russia has gone a long way towards self-suffiency in all strategic areas. So I don’t think he has anything against stopping the war, just as long as he can declare a victory. And that’s the big stumbling block with Zelensky. That’s why Trump has been trying to humble him into acceptance of a workable deal that can last.
“I disagree that Russia could pose a threat to any member of NATO, its military is exhausted”
I suppose they are also collapsing any day now from the sanctions as well, fighting with shovels and Ukraine has all the NATO “game changer” equipment and those great old school WWII big sweeping arrow tactics that have been so effective. It’s not like Russia has consistently been able to fire according to Zelensky himself 10X more artillery in a war where 70 to 80% of the casualties have been reported from artillery and rocket fire.
It’s a good thing we don’t have a habit of underestimating Russia and overestimating things we want to succeed. Then we’d all be stupid and stuck on maximalist outcomes. We should be so thankful for media narratives that ground us in so much helpful truth…
‘I have great sympathy for the people of Ukraine…’ No you don’t.
I agree with many of your comments. What is ignored is that France and Germany tried to recreate Charlemagne’ s Empire which was the only time they were united. Until 1990,France was the only country in Western Europe which did not accept the protection of the USA. After 1990 Europe decided it did not need the protection of the USA and Germany in particular, reduced defence expenditure.
The EU and the USA treated Russia with indifference after 1990 and the privatisation impoverished Russian people between 1990 and 2000. Putin wants to recreate the Empire of Peter the Great- read Catherine Belton- Putin’s People. Certain aspects of the Russian character have been ignored 1. One can only deal with Russia from a position of strength.2 The Mongols left a tradition of cruelty and corruption- scratch a Russia and find a Tatar. The Revolution resulted in massive loss of the middle class. 4. Communism ended in 1990 but the Chekists remained in place and felt utterly humiliated.
The West prodded Russia yet reduced defending to 1.2 % of GDP in the case of Germany, cancelled nuclear power and became dependant on Russian gas and the people lost their toughness and fighting spirit to win wars. There is saying “ Putting armour on chicken does not make a warrior”. If one looks at the toughest members of the British armed forces they come from tough inner city areas, farms and tough public schools; they are not soft surbanites. Walker and Craighead are the types of people one needs in the Armed forces if one wants to deter aggression and win wars.
Roland Walker – Wikipedia
Christian Craighead – SAS Operator | SRS #92
What the West could have done is recreate the Finland option for all the countries bordering Russia. Finland post 1945 was democratic and had free markets but was not part of the EEC and NATO.
Where do we go from here? 1. Develop Shale Oil and Gas so reduce Russian imports. 2. Toughen up European youth – rugby, boxing and cross country runs in winter will do the job.3. Reduce waste in defence spending . 4. When waste reduced increase defence spending to 2.5 % of GDP. Fill the holes before trying to add more water to the bucket. 5. Increase the standard of selection, training and testing to be the best in the World- quality not quantity.
I have never understood why Christian Craighead is not an household name. You would have thought HMG would have shouted his amazing acheivement form the rooftops but instead they treated him extremely shabbily and he moved to the USA (I think he is now in Trump’s security detail).
I can only conclude that the powers-that-be found a white man saving hundreds of black Africans to be somehow disreputable.
The ‘white saviour’ is the stuff of DEI nightmares!
Perhaps getting Germany involved in Rugby would be a good start?
I’m sure they would produce an excellent team in say the Seven Nations! After all Italy thrashed Wales recently and has produced a most credible team.
Many great points.
However both Finland and Sweden joined NATO.
I would trust their judgment about danger of Russian aggression more than all pro Russian commenters on here and elsewhere.
Thank you. Finland did very well for decades, fom 1945 to 1995 outside of EU. .
100% , these people do not care about dead Ukrainian , Russian white men. the War has come to represent something else. I’m right wing, don’t like Putin or Zelensky. These people have elevated Putin into something he is not, he isn’t some great national hero , he is not hitler either
i literally 2 minutes ago got into an argument with a family member, who thinks Trump is a warmonger (what wars did he start) and that Ukraine should literally fight to the last man. This person 4 years ago would not have been able to even place Ukraine on a map
Victory to Russia has been on the table for 14 yrs and it was simple
No NATO ever
But NO NO NO NO NO time and time again the West played games
One that they now find themselves
Check Mated with no possible way out now other than full acceptance
Of Russia’s terms
Agreed. Putin’s attitude toward the encroachment of NATO over the years is not unreasonable.
Think back to the Cuban Missile Crisis. No one on this side of the Atlantic thought that Russian missiles belonged in Cuba.
The Russians themselves, having stepped over the line, recognized their own interests and withdrew. We should do the same instead of constantly baiting them.
Very good point. So the answer would be for Europe to re-arm asap in order to become independently defendable, but also promise/agree to withdraw NATO from some of its more forward positions in the future once re-armament is more complete?
I’m not sure that any actual withdrawal is necessary. Just stop trying to expand Eastward.
Do we have missiles in Poland? That could be an issue.
There was no encroachment of NATO.
Former slaves of Russia wanted to join NATO.
All based on experience of centuries of Russian genocidal imperialism.
If Russia is no danger to neighbours why did Sweden and Finland join NATO?
Great comment. Just to add how much Trump is driven by pure economics. The USA debt is getting more unsustainable by the day, & they have to cut back everywhere that’s (politically) possible.
Given this situation, to continue pouring money into the war with nothing material in return is lunacy. The materials deal makes sense for the USA & Ukraine; unfortunately (but unsurprisingly) Zelensky wants military guarantees. Trump this will not do, & I think that’s being honest – unlike the grandstanding, posturing pillock Starmer & his ilk. However having significant assets in Ukraine would mean Putin would be unlikely to launch a full scale assault.
It comes down to geography. The closer you are, the more it matters, which is why Churchill had no choice but to fight or surrender, notwithstanding any moral imperatives involved. So although Zelensky’s position is horrible, Trump was right. It’s for Europe to grow up & step up to the plate.
During 2024, Europe purchased 18 percent of its oil and gas from Putin even as Europe continues to fund Ukraine’s war with Russia.
European politicians virtue signal: They publicly worship Zelensky before the adoring masses and act indignant about Trump’s approach to Mr Z … while privately they admit that Europe won’t poke Putin too much or more Russian oil and gas will flow to China and these politicians will lose their jobs. Many of them feel relief that Trump was a man and spoke the truth to Mr Z – that this truly is an unwinnable war for Ukraine due to the war being a ‘numbers game’ with Russia and due to Europe’s self-serving energy policies. It’s best for Mr Z to sue for peace.
Furthermore, Mr Z’s demands for a “Security Guarantee” from the US is demanding that the US not learn the lesson from Vietnam. But this time we wouldn’t have a proxy war on our hands (e.g. South Vietnam against North Vietnam); rather, the world would see two nuclear powers directly face off in Ukraine.
Thus a “Security Guarantee” from the US to Ukraine would significantly raise the probability of WWIII.
Thank God Trump sees through the European Leaders’ and Democrats’ indignant virtue-signaling and is pushing for the only realistic option with a world future – peace. With Democrats currently signaling their readiness to send the US to war with Russia, they’ve shown themselves unfit to lead.
Now that Mr Z caved in, Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize far more than Obama and many others for keeping us all from WWIII.
Although I believe that Trump should enact a heavy price on billionaire-through-corruption Zelensky, since Zelensky chose to grandstand in the Oval Office thereby enacting a heavy political price on Trump for absolutely no reason other than hubris.
Brilliant comment sir, thank you.
Excellent comments. What Bruckner states in “Tears ..”is that estern Europe resents being saved by the English speaking World in 1945 and that they no longer have the power to influence events, only react to them. The USA still has the power to influence events.
Pascal Bruckner – Wikipedia
The greater the desire to influence events while the power to do so declines, produces even more absurd statements and posturing.
Up to the 1980s Germany had a tank capability to deter attcks but this is long gone. Britain had the equipment and ability to fight. Now only Britain has the fighting spirit to enage in hand to hand combat but lacks the resources. The type of robustness and fighting displayed by Walker and Craighead only develops through centuries of breeding and winning battles.
Other than Britain, name one other country in Europe capable of producing soldiers whom would deter the Russians and give examples of their combat experience ?
Many good points.
However, why would any deal re Ukraine short of its membership of NATO lead to peace and not further Russian aggression?
There was deal in place called Budapest memorandum guaranteeing Ukraine independence and territorial integrity.
Did it work? No.
You must know something that Sweden and Finland do not.
Otherwise why did they join NATO?
Excellent analysis.
Russia is a very great threat to NATO. Not through its land or air forces but through its underwater capabilities, against which we have little current defence. Pipelines, electricity interconnectors and internet cables are all at risk.
Add to that the cyber threat at which Russia and it’s allies China & N Korea are very skilled. We’ve already had glimpses of that with attacks on NHS IT, the Electoral Commission and various commercial operations. Once Miliband has succeeded in electrifying everything, a successful cyber attack on the Grid will bring the country to it’s knees in 72 hours.
Europe calling US: “Washington, we will fight for Ukraine instead of you! — Okay. Do you have what it takes? — No. But we will do it anyway! — Why? — So that you notice us and accept us into the peacemakers team! — Why do you need to be in it? — To share in Ukraine’s assets! — What if we don’t want that? — Then we will fight! And we’ll spoil your game with the Russians for you! — What do you need so that you don’t fight? — Lower trade tariffs, our share in Ukraine’s assets, and recognition of our main demand! — What demand? — Consider us great too!”
The reality is that Europe (EU) offers cheap platitudes, with nothing to back it up.
Will Putin be deterred by German forces armed with brooms?
Starmer is hardly any different. The UK forces are so diminished that they offer virtually nothing to the argument.
All bluster, no strength. The chickens have come home to roost.
I can’t tell you what a relief it is to read someone so sane and cogent in an opinion piece, I sometimes feel like I’m losing my mind reading other ‘experts’.
The EU has totally broken Europe. What we have now is an organisation that essentially runs European government policy, including budget allocation for immigrants and carbon emissions, that somehow has absolutely no role to play in organising military defence or spending at the same time. This is utterly insane.
As a result, Europe has gone from being a genuine manufacturing power in the 1990s to an irrevocably retreating manufacturing force at a time where it needs to manufacture more than ever. The only area in which Europe now is a world leader is in public grandstanding and virtue signalling, and I’m not even been glib there sadly.
Europe is the logical conclusion of a political system that is staffed almost entirely by bureaucrats , academics and other paper pushing grifters from the bottom up. We find it impossible to excel at any emergent technology because we are ruled by people who have no expertise in wealth creation or business.
These people have lived in their own fantasy world for their entire political careers. While Europe should have been building its armies to defend itself from existential external threats it busied itself with pursuing fantasy net zero policies, forcing DEI policies into every sphere of life, legislating against wealth and innovation, and flooding most European countries with millions of migrants who have no loyalty to their host country whatsoever.
And yet still , somehow, at the 11th hour, they find the nerve to grandstand some more, and to swell up their collective bosom at their moral superiority to nasty realists like Trump and Vance.
Totally share your read of the situation
The calibre of our rulers in Europe is far more frightening than Trump and Putin combined.
That fact is so far from being properly understood by the ruled, hence being ready to drastically reform and make hard choices, that I have no hope for any of our countries.
Perhaps we should be encouraging Putin to take over Western Europe on the grounds that he might do a better job? (For the record, tongue fairly firmly in cheek!)
It’s funny how the people who in other contexts would criticise ‘eurocentrism’ now expect the world to come to Europe’s aid.
“The EU has totally broken Europe.”
It’s why Britain had Brexit: we could see the consequences of Brussels.
Karin Kneissl, on The Duran, said Brussels is full of graduates that studied Politics and/or some in-vogue minority, so no Engineers, Scientists, or even Geographers, when participating in Geo-politics. Or Businessmen and Businesswoman. 🙂
Europe is full of people who studied languages – who like words. Monoglot working people are totally excluded. The love of words over plain and simple efficiency is everywhere – have a read of the newly released EU simplification strategy for a laugh for instance.
I was in Romania recently and their society is divided between those that can speak English (and so earn foreign dollars) and those that can’t. The monoglots are clearly the second class citizens. I’m not surprised they voted for a leader who the EU found unacceptable.
In The Duran’s YT with Karin Kneissl, link in nearby post, Alexander said Britain had too many debating societies: not that debate wasn’t useful, but that it hindered diplomacy skills. I would add that it also hinders STEM graduates from entering Politics, in addition to trashing Industry, where cooperation is essential for success.
Brilliant. We have a ruling class bereft of robustness, resilience, vitality,imagination, initiative, and technical skill.
Thank you for demonstratin that not all Europeans have become reactionary fools.
It’s their political ‘elites’, with the degrees in Law. History ‘of any sort’, Politics, or woke minority, not the general population.
When the European oligarchs finish selling ot Europe, many of us will do what we an to assist with the relocation.
This narrative that Putin wants all of the Soviet empire back still has legs? Really? Why hasn’t he gone into Kiev then? Why hasn’t he turned it into Gaza? All this fear mongering about the “new hitler, Stalin, Saddam, … uh.. Ivan the terrible?” Is for dupes who watch news and read newspapers. There is a plethora of rare earths in Ukraine, and Shell oil had a contract with the Ukrainian govt to explore gas fields for the next 50 years. Unfortunately- for big gas bags – that area is now under Russian control. Does starmer – that aura less wonk – really think the red army is on the March? Of course not. But the British elite want to sell weapons and get dat gas.
“Why hasn’t he gone into Kiev then?”
Go and watch some newsreels from three years ago.
“Why hasn’t he turned it into Gaza?”
Large parts of it, probably a bigger area than Gaza which is quite small, have been.
Starmer wants Ukraine’s Hydrocarbons, but is winding down the North Sea Oil/Gas Industry, and continuing the ban on fraccing the Bowland Shale!
Typical Law, Any Sort of History, or Politics graduate! 🙂
Yes, it still has legs. Unsurprising really, considering that is the formulation that he uses himself in his own writings. Except he calls it the Russian Empire.
An understandable confusion though, as his early history was as an FSB (KGB then) thug.
He appears to still hanker after those ‘good old days’.
Superb article.
The delusion most of the EU is suffering under is hard to explain other than saying the utterly disconnected, obtuse liberal elites have drunk too much of their own cool aid and genuinely believe in their own infallibility.
This will end very much like the Munich Security Conference …. In tears.
What is truly embarrassing about all this is the blatantly patronising attitude of Eurocrats towards the United States. All those snide remarks about how young, parvenu, and generally immature and gauche the US is, when, with the exception of our good selves, the very opposite is true.
The US has been living with under the rule of Common Law and a Constitution for some 234/5 years now. How goes it with the Titans of Europe? Not good!
Let’s start with France. What was she up to in 1788/89? On the cusp of a devastating revolution, that would see two further Monarchies, two Empires and five Republics, with a sixth in the wings. Bravo.
Next the Fatherland, and predictably even worse. In 1788/89 Germany was merely a “geographical expression” made up of a plethora of nano states with a few larger entities all wrapped up in the ‘Holy Roman Empire’, (HRE) which Voltaire famously described as “neither Holy, Roman or an Empire. Since then a French satellite, then replaced by a slimmed down version of the HRE, followed conquest and unification by Prussia into a ‘federal’ Empire, succeeded by a Republic, then another rather short lived Empire (Reich), dismemberment, another Republic and finally reunification, with perhaps another Reich on the horizon. Again, bravo!
Finally to that paragon of virtue, Italy. Again a “geographical expression” in 1788/89 and like Germany a collection of mainly pygmy states. Again like Germany united as a French satellite only to disintegrate and return to chaos post 1815. Eventual reunification under a native Monarchy thanks to French military intervention. Then a new ‘Roman Empire’, abject military defeat, revolution and finally a Republic. Yet again bravo!
Compared to this litany of disasters the United States may hold up its head with considerable pride.
France and Germany are the main threats to Britain. Obviously not at the moment when they are (ostensible) allies and very weak. But in years to come if one or other or both re-arm seriously, we will have to be prepared. That means defending our islands, our infrastructure and our trade. And that means air defences, navy, intelligence and nukes. The threat from Russia (on the other side of Europe) and China (on the other side of the world) is non-existent. Building up land forces to fight on the continent is crazy. We do need to be able to launch attacks anywhere in the world as we are likely to face state and private actors attacking our shipping and interests (oil fields around The Falklands for instance). But we are not looking to invade and occupy other lands. We should of course, prioritise and strengthen our alliance with the USA.
As much as I love that Voltaire quote about the HRE, from looking at maps, I’ve always thought it to be rather holey. Just more reminiscent of several month old Swiss cheese.
Emmental perhaps?
Comments worthy of Disraeli. Steven Ambrose at the end of World at War summarises the history of Europe from 1919 to mid 1970s. He states that France and Geramny only become democratic in 1945. He ignores Italy which is the same. Spain becomes democratic when Franco dies.
Schulman and other founders of the EEC never planned a democracy. The Coal and Steel Pact followed by the EEC is a largely Christian Democrat desire to recreate Charlemagne’s Empire under the control of a Bureaucratic Oligarchy modelled on the French Civil Service. The aim is to prevent Nazi or Communists taking over Europe. de Gaulle said Frnce and Germany is Europe , the rest are trimmings.
What we have is a BO whose dersire for power far outstrips actual power and is the cause of the massive decline in industrial and military capability ,fitness and fighting spirit.
When Romans conquered Greece in 146 BC they said they had lost their military valour; Trump has said the same .
Listening to European commentators squealing after the fiasco in the Oval Office–that Trump had a business interest in Russia or that Putin has dirt on Trump–was really eye opening. These were former generals and NATO bureaucrats.
Normally this would make me angry. The sheer fabrication-ness of these fabrications. Just like when we were told that Biden was as sharp as a tack even as he decomposed before our very eyes.
This time I just laughed. They are squealing because they know that the whole edifice is coming down.
None of this is good, but what can you do in the face of such farce? The Europeans are completely out of touch even though they have the most reason to be brutally realistic about domestic and international conditions.
It’s going to take a continued series of tragedies before they wake up. Even then, their solution to the end of Europe is likely going to be just as tragic.
Of course if there was any dirt it would be what Zelensky had on Biden
TL;DR, Trump was right about everything!
I did suspect that the talk about using Russian frozen assets was always more bark than bite, and this article confirms that. My hunch had been that if they hadn’t touched them 3 years after freezing them, it was probably because it would blow up in their face to do so.
This is a very precarious moment and I am being overtaken by the same feeling that I had at the start of the pandemic: that some kind of mad dynamic is taking hold that I can do nothing to stop but which is going to prove extremely damaging and it will only be understood once it’s too late for us all.
Back then, it was lockdowns. This time it’s Ukraine – and it has the potential to make the pandemic look like a kid’s birthday party.
Watched the White House drama again in full yesterday and my support for Zelenskyy is now even less. He just needs to take this deal. I don’t know what European leaders are thinking with all of this rhetoric, but they need to be be yanked out of cloud cuckoo land, NOW. At this point, I fear them far more than I fear Trump or Putin.
I also think that part of this stance is some kind of anti-Trump reflex and honestly, now is not the time to allow TDS to cloud your thinking.
Agree 300%!
Katherine I agree completely, it really is frightening. The reality of the situation is very simple; the only country that can keep Ukraine’s war effort afloat is America, therefore America dictate the terms. Without American involvement (for better or worse) Ukraine resistance can’t last a fortnight.
All of these technocratic political leaders in the EU seem completely and dangerously detached from reality, and they could sleepwalk us into World War III. They give me the impression of a load of top tier Drama and Theatre students who’ve just been tasked with building space rockets, they have absolutely no idea where to start or what to say. They don’t even have a frame of reference for the challenge in front of them, so they default back to grandstanding speeches and patting each other on the back.
Spot on madam, it takes a woman to see through the miasma of male hubris.
If ‘you’ had been in charge in say 1914 we might now be in a ‘better place’.
Oh pack it in Charles, Jacinda Ardern, Angela Merkel, and Theresa May are as much to blame for the mess we’re in as Biden, Johnson, and Macron.
Much as I admire and respect many women, well said. I’m not convinced that Kamala would’ve had the answers to this awful mess either.
Yes I agree, but occasionally someone has to play ‘Devil’s Advocate’, and my Chief of Staff has to be placated!
This war is the globalists last big hope of their total control, and they are going to try anything.
Based and they’re-going-to-get-us-all-killed-pilled.
Some things I disagree with, but as usual on target.
Excellent clear-sighted article, thank you.
I cannot see Putin agreeing to any peace deal which involves a European peace-keeping force on the ground, on it’s borders, in Ukraine. This is pure fantasy.
As in so many other areas of politics today, the narrative we are presented with seems almost childish in it’s happy clappiness, while the reality is either hidden or deliberately ignored or rejected. But reality will have it’s way.
The right thing to do would be to give Ukraine a choice in how it wishes to proceed from here. Europe has very limited capacity to back up that choice though if it’s not peace, so the sensible thing to do is to go for a ceasefire and use the time to prepare for a possible renewal of hostilities, something that Ukraine needs even more than the Russians do. I doubt European capacity even to use that time sufficiently well, but there it is.
I’m sorry, but stating the obvious does not make this a great article; merely not incorrect. Yes, it is pathetic to see European politicians (see last week’s Question Time) wangle their jaws and pompously announce that “Ukraine MUST be involved in peace talks” or “WE must ensure…” That is those without a pot to piss in still insisting on marble urinals.
However, I’m reading dismissals of Russia’s military capacity as more self-delusion. Our line goes: if Russia has no true capacity to threaten westward, them we have no need to wake up and re-arm and Europe can just carry on as before; sorted.
Except it’s not. We will be sorted if we don’t get real.
Europe is like a senile old man on his death bed. The life support is about to be turned off and the nurses are looting the house. Unable to walk he thrashes about, swearing and groaning as the life force ebbs away.
Every paragraph of this article has a proposition or assumption in it that relies on the predisposition of its reader to carry its weight. The argument is suitable for an entertaining moot maybe, but not to be read as a sober, or, sometimes, fair analysis.
So what is your alternative?
The floor is yours sir.
This reads like Sophistry. It’s philosophical gobbledygook. The author was speaking in clear English drawing rational conclusions and doing so under the pressure of a deadline.
You were under no pressure and just wrote two incoherent sentences that say nothing.
Here’s The Duran’s analysis of the current military situation in Ukraine, and the UK Legacy Media’s version:
https://youtu.be/EfIL12DzPOE
The only Podcast worth listening to.
Further proof that Wolfgang’s weekly column is a must-read.
‘Debt’ is how pretty much every war is financed. The ECB can just buy the bonds. War bonds are not really sold because the government needs money – it can print money after all – it is to redirect resources to the war. The bigger danger is runaway inflation.
The EU economy is about 20 times that of Russia. Money is the least of their problem, the only question is who is willing to pay and play. Both US and the EU will have a problem with production if a war gets hot. Going back to a cold war situation means a lot of industrial spending and very progressive taxation. Guess who does not want that? You will have start taxing those who actually have the money, which is the asset-rich rentier class that exploded all across the West, especially in the past 20 years. In fact, rent seeking is the last thing you want in a military standoff. Of course the rentiers will try to distract everyone by pointing at welfare programs, but its really their welfare program that needs to be cut if the West wants to have an industry capable of warfare.
The bigger problem is that Europe is probably not unified enough and that European populations do not care enough. In the end I think Ukraine matters more to Russia then it does to the West. So I am not sure if Putin thinks Europe is desperate. I think he is mostly trying to figure out if they are actually desperate enough.
An economic viewpoint that should win you plaudits in Brussels while producing a 50 cent Euro and 20% inflation.
” ‘Debt’ is how pretty much every war is financed.”
Yes, but we’re not talking about how to finance a war, we’re talking about the opposite: peace. Wars don’t last forever which is why they can be financed via debt. What we can’t do is keep borrowing every year in perpetuity to fund the deterrant to war.
Exactly. The problem is never the money — it’s the real resources, including labour. And plutocracy is the greatest internal danger to democracy.
oops
Very sensible and justly sobering. It’s true that European leaders having stridently backed the US Democrats, against even their own better private judgement, using the media for public hysteria, have created a classic public opinion trap. Blowing smoke about virtue, while deeply immoral. Repeat of WWI or the Spanish-American War.
Europe is not seeking victory – I doubt Zelensky is. Europe is trying to avoid total defeat, seeking a deal that keeps Putin from just conquering more and more territory. Putin’s goal is clear. He wants to get back the power and territorial control that the Zar had in 1900 and that the USSR had in 1988. He said so himself. So: Do we just give that to him? Or do we find a way to stop him? That is going to be very hard, but anyone advocating for complete surrender to Russia should at least call things by their right name.
For Ukraine a deal that gave up a couple of oblasts and the Crimea in return for NATO membership and reliable US security guarantees would actually be worth it – at least it would give Ukraine a future as an independent country. A ‘peace’ now that let Russia keep what it has, build up its ammunition reserves, and then relaunch the war at a time of their choosing is nothing more than a slightly delayed surrender. If Ukraine is going to end under Russian ownership anyway, the interim deals are not going to matter.
The ‘deal’; that Trump is pushing is to give Russia everything it wants, and to extract maximum cash from Ukraine in the process. By themselves the US mining rights would not serve as protection. After all, nothing would prevent Putin from invading Ukraine again, and just give the US a guarantee to respect their mining concessions.
We don’t need to be involved at all. Russia is not the Soviet Union in scale or capability. EU has 3x the GDP and population of Russia. France has nukes as does the UK…build more..we have a debt and deficit problem here in the USA that is our main concern. Time to prioritize spending on our domestic needs. It’s been 3 yrs of a meat grinder with little movement on either side…Europe wants to finance another 3 or more than that’s up to you all….but the EU citizens won’t give up their golden social spending to pay for defence so what then??
Sensible comment RF – there is no ‘victory’ for which Ukraine is aiming – recovery of stolen territory (and the assets of people and resources therein (or whatever the brutal Russian destroyers have left) is not victory but the avoidance of defeat and surrender.
And comments from the Kremlin that Ukraine and Europe are the parties of war would be laughable if it was not so serious – Russia is the party of war – they started it and they could stop it tomorrow.
How many countries do you think deserve Article 5 guarantees, Rasmus?
Americans are done having their kids sent off to war to defend countries that don’t even share our values.
Absolutely agree with last para – it had occurred to me that Trump has perhaps already agreed that with Putin!
None of that matters. Ukraine is not and will not be in a position to dictate terms to Russia. After initial transient success Ukraine has failed in two offensive drives to retake significant territory, is now slowly ceding ground to Russia, has a massive recruitment crisis, is seeing its infrastructure degraded, and has no strategy to turn all that around. Its nominal European allies have moral certitude but no strategy nor means to execute a strategy. Zelensky would be smart to take the best deal Trump can get for him. Notwithstanding how many pro-war western leaders clutch their pearls at the domino theory of Putin’s imperial ambitions, the reality is that he has sacrificed a million Russians in this escapade and will not be eager to repeat such a debacle soon. Plus, Putin is 70 years old and will soon be off the stage one way or another. When he goes Russia will likely repeat the post Gorbachev implosion and return to irrelevance. Putin is surrounded by toady idiots who will too busy stealing what’s left to conjure up imperial notions.
Russia will keep expanding, first carefully then more aggressively, as long as it looks to them like they can get away with it. That is simple logic. It might well be necessary to make a deal to end the war by now, but for any deal to hold it has to be clear to Russia that breaking it would be very costly. Instead Trump is making clear that Russia can do whatever they want and the US will be happy to help them. Where do you think that will lead?
As for Putin being afraid to repeat his warmaking (he won, his regime is secure, why does he care about soldiers dying, that is what they are for?) or Putin dying soon (another 15 years? Why would his successor be any different?) that is just wishful thinking on your part. If Trump wants anyone (including Putin) to believe that he will do anything to rein in Russia, he is going about it exactly the wrong way.
Brilliant post.
The author makes the point that “One of the important principles (the 30 Years War) established was that of non-interference in other countries’ domestic policies. It laid the foundation of the modern nation state and marked the beginning of a golden age of European politics, art and science.”
Russia is exactly trying to destroy that – invading a sovereign country is the ultimate ‘interference in another country’s domestic policy’.
Look up the Maidan Coup and the Minsk Agreements for some background.
Why don’t you look into Budapest memorandum for a background?
The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again, and that is European policy towards the Ukraine since spring 2022.
… since the Maidan Coup, in 2014.
And the world since 1938.
Our ruling class should be careful what they wish for. When push come to shove we will be unable to find will nor resources to beat Russia.
To paraphrase Anne Applebaum “If there is even a small chance that military humiliation at the hands of Russia could help end the horrific reign of our ruling class, just as military defeat brought an end to the cult of violence in Germany, it would not be a bad silver lining.”
We’ve already had the shove!
And we’ve LOST, BIG TIME.
And it hasn’t registered with the European ‘Elite’.
… At least we will find out who not to vote for at the next general election.
Good dose of reality. What puzzles me is why most of the commentators seem to have been caught in an idealist warp?
They are Idealists, with an addictive Ideology, that has delivered, so far. And the rest of us have had enough, no matter which country we live in.
I abhor Trump’s style and I feel terrible for Zelensky after his bruising experience over the weekend, but Trump is merely delivering the same message to Europe that America has been trying to deliver for almost 20 years: the American taxpayer cannot keep paying for Europe’s defence.
Trump has decided to stop sugar-coating the message to see if the Europeans will actually take notice, because clearly saying it nicely hasn’t worked. I do accept though that even if America’s patience has justifiably run out, Trump is still playing a dangerous game that could go wrong very easily.
The main point is, though, that wealthy European nations have spent three generations not taking responsibility for one of the most important dimensions of statecraft, namely self-defence. It has to do so now, and that’s going to hurt. The UK, Brexit or no Brexit, is almost as culpable as the EU in this respect, and we face some very hard facts in due course.
You speak as if transatlantic partnership agreements have never existed. Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, both the EU and the US have had significant benefits from the transatlantic military agreement, but it can be argued that the US has had somewhat more advantages.
NATO isn’t actually a proper partnership though, is it? It’s America paying to put it’s own blood and treasure between Europe and USSR/Russia while the Europeans spend what would otherwise be their own defence budgets on assorted crap.
I do accept that to an extent, the USA should expect to spend at least some money in order to protect its own role as global policeman, but surely not as much as Europe has got used to since WW2.
On the other hand, Europeans have both, paid and died in NATO actions that were almost always in American interest. Certainly, an alliance like this – unparalleled – surely deserves a fair agreement between allies. America won’t find a better ally than EU countries. NATO was like that because that’s the deal. It’s time for a different deal if the EU and the US want it. Thank you John for conversation.
But Europe used to spend much more than proposed 3% on its defence in pre 1990 days.
I think it was 4.7% for uk in the 80s?
It was only 35 years ago when Europe decided to disarm.
There are two choices for dealing with a Russia agressor.
Spend 25% of all EU countries GDP on armaments and have conscription.
Declare neutrality and hope it is respected .
Either way the UK needs tightly secure borders and to know who is in the country. Its current sieve like stance is an open invitation to hostile forces.
We don’t need to spend 25% to deter Russia.
3.5% or preferably 4% should be sufficient.
Talk about neutrality is just silly.
Why do you think Sweden and Finland joined NATO.
Idea that Russia can be trusted to keep any agreement is mad.
Just remember Budapest memorandum.
In 2024, Russia’s oil and gas revenues reached $108.22 billion, a 26% increase from the previous year. This revenue is a key source of funding for the Russian government.
The EU spends more on Russian oil and gas than financial aid to Ukraine – Europe estimated to have bought €22bn of fossil fuels from Russia in 2024 but gave €19bn to support Kyiv.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/eu-spends-more-russian-oil-gas-than-financial-aid-ukraine-report
Putin is and only ever was interested in protecting ethnic Russians in the ex-Soviet Bloc. Yet Zelensky and European liberal governments can’t even bring themselves to provide security guarantees for ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who have been persecuted and killed for their cultural identity because ethnic Russian oligarchs in eastern Ukraine were closely associated with strategic interests like hydrocarbons and port facilities.
Even as we speak, Putin has embarked in the reconstruction of Mariupol and its reversion to Russification which ethnic Russians in the area support.
The reality is that the independence of Ukraine has split the country in half between the west and the east as a result of Western liberal meddling in the internal affairs of a young still forming nation-state and like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, it has backfired. Essentially Western powers have created a partition with the west pro-EU and pro-NATO and the east pro-Russia with regions like the Donbas wanting autonomy.
Thus Putin’s appeal for Ukraine neutrality was in hindsight the correct trajectory for Ukraine and one which respected the human rights of both ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians in all parts of the Ukraine.
Instead of neutrality and providing the necessary nurturing to allow Ukraine to find its own solutions to its “hard culture war”, the West instead sought to leverage the hard culture war for its own self serving agenda including allowing the persecution of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. If the same treatment of an ethnic minority had occurred in any other European countries, then these same liberal elites would have been up in arms.
Ultimately, the Ukrainian state and their divisive proxy enablers in Washington, Brussels and London deserve to lose eastern Ukraine because it is now very clear that they do not respect human rights or international law and those Western governments that have been involved should be brought before the Hague.
Now the only person that can be trusted to protect ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine is Putin and Trump obviously agrees as long as he can position American interests within the region in order to let the situation calm down.
Peace in the Ukraine region for both ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians.
That’s what I call a lasting durable PEACE ️
You don’t know what you’re talking about, I suggest you visit Eastern Ukraine and talk to random “ethnic Russians” (who are actually Russian-speaking Ukrainians) and see what they tell you. Zelenskyy himself is one and a Russophile pretty much all up to February 2022. Hell, the TV series that helped him get elected are in Russian.
These days the USA is allied with Russia and therefore the USA is the enemy. Supposedly Europe is therefore defenceless, but as a European I am not ready to capitulate and neither is Ukraine.
As for the supposed critical need for US satellites etc, well the Taliban had none of that, but they still ultimately won in Afghanistan.
The US is not allied with Russia, goofball. Just because the US is talking to them doesn’t make them “aligned.”
I suspect that was because there were big beards with bigger Kalashs who shoot first and don’t ask questions, on every street corner. They had mobile phones, but satellites were not really part of their tactical resources! (Of course things may change once phone infrastructures are replaced with StarLink satellites…)
It is not at all clear that Putin would agree to a cease fire unless he can present it as a total victory, its entirely possible that he fears he would not survive as leader if the war ends with an independent, democratic Ukraine.
will Zelensky survive as leader of “an independent, democratic Ukraine,” something the country is not at the moment?
The problem with war is that it is basically a very stupid thing to do. It never ever achieves a logical objective and it costs a fortune. It is always cheaper to buy the objective than obliterate it.
Most wars in the last 100 years have been caused by people of unsound mind who – once started- have no way of stopping. And more often than not it is about shoring up their powerbase at home than anything else.
This makes negotiation futile because no one involved can be relied upon to keep to the terms. Anyone mad enough to start a war cannot be trusted.
The only solution is to remove the person causing the problem. To a sanatorium for the bewildered would be best.
What a very snooty pro-Russian article that basically says Europe is useless compared to the USA and Russia.
Europe is an extremely wealthy block that has immense resources and know-how. Currently the US is yhe main arms producer. just like it was with aircraft production with Boeing, but then Europe started Airbus and look who is tje dominant manufacturer now.
Putin is a very nasty piece of work and, as Trump says, extremely cunning. He loves pacific artcles and pro-Rissian propoganda like this that show Europe to be weak, divided and conflicted. How about the writer talking about the fire state of the Russian economy with inflation at 21% and the Russoan populace furious at the high food prices?
If peace is to be made, Russia cannot be allowed to come out of this war unpunished for its invasion. And if the war needs to continue to achieve the best terms for Ukraine – then so be it.
Starmer and Macron are not proposing to support Ukraine towards victory.
Their offer is to police the ceasefire line after a peace deal is made. They will have no substantial say in that deal, though plastic flowers will be tossed their way to assuage hurt egos.
The US has refused to guarantee a deal. ‘European’ guarantees will be a few very thinly stretched divisions and perhaps (or NOT) the Anglo/French nuclear arsenal, the Force de (suicide) Frappe.
The positions you set up are inaccurate. The choice is not peace now or victory through war later. The choice, rather, is for a sustainable peace. This will not be achieved without some guarantees for Ukraine.
Excellent analysis of the situation in Europe / Ukraine by Wolfgang Munchau.
The sooner Zelensky hot foots it back to the Oval Office, (preferably in a suit and tie !!) and backs Trumps plan the better.
If not, Europe is in for a very rocky ride, hopefully Starmer will recognise the UK is in no position to put boots on the ground.
This is an EU problem and they need to deal with it and Zelensky without delay.
I’ve read elsewhere that the neo-cons led by Nuland encouraged Zelensky to ask for a public signing of the minerals agreement and then try to use the open media opportunity to pressurise for and try to manipulate a security guarantee. It is certainly true that Zelensky proposed a mineral agreement, that he agreed the terms sans security, that he could have signed it in Kiev, and that he asked for the public show in Washington. Quite why he so spectacularly failed and blew his chance is another question. Maybe he’s not much of an actor after all, or maybe he has got too used to hero’s welcomes in the west with no push back or awkward questions at all.
Donald Trump wants peace, now. Volodymyr Zelensky and his European supporters want victory, later.
one is possible, the other is not.
From the outset there was never any chance that Ukraine could win the war. Russia is far too big by comparison and has unlimited supplies of expendable young men it can toss into battle. The support of western nations for Ukraine in this conflict has been little short of irresponsible, if not criminal – i.e. for facilitating and encouraging a war of attrition that was never winable from the outset. And Trump is right – efforts to secure peace should have been made within weeks of the war’s commencement. But nobody did anything in this direction until Trump’s intervention following his inauguration this year.
And one other thing. This war, like so many other conflicts since the late 1940s, has demonstrated the United Nations’ total uselessness as an organisation established to bring peace to the world. To the contrary, it has fuelled anti-colonial conflicts globally since its inception, and is a travesty of a body for world peace. I hope Trump pulls out of it, as he did from WHO; and that he kicks the organisation and its HQ out of USA and tells them to set up their horrible talking shop somewhere else. Wouldn’t Gaza be the perfect location for a reconstituted UN?
Trump’s deal with Putin will lead inexorably to total defeat for Ukraine. The idea that a handful of American mining executives are going to stop Putin’s green men from infiltrating and undermining Ukraine after a peace deal not backed by American military support is naive beyond belief. The idea that actual American miners are going to be digging rare earth materials in Ukraine is just plain stupid.
And what will the first defeat in war of a major European country since WW2 look like. Will Putin invest Russian money in reconstructing Ukraine’s shattered cities and factories? How will he treat the military personnel and the politicians and the ordinary people who opposed him? With kindness?
And what low hanging fruit will he pluck next? When Ukraine falls it won’t be the end of anything but the beginning of something much much worse.
His deal with Putin will lead to total defeat for Ukraine? Who is even at the negotiation table in this hypothetical. Draw a diagram.
This is a total non sequitur. What are you even talking about. Its like bad facts with bizarre hypothetical speculation leading to absurdity.
Putin is already reconstructing the areas he occupies. You think a million dead and wounded Russians constitutes “low hanging fruit”? I think it perfectly reasonable to assume Putin’s fingers have been well-burned by the Ukraine experience and, although her would never admit it, would welcome an off-ramp that allowed him to keep what he occupies, spin it to Russians as victory, and then turn his attention to his shattered economy. Russians are a people who can endure stupendous privation but they are also known for putting bullets into the heads of their leaders when they’ve had enough.
That article is a superb summation of what is wrong with European leaders. Not one of them is willing to be realistic about what is needed for the war to end; they are just posturing for their own political ends.
European policy on Russia reminds me of the ‘multi-agency approach’ where lots of groups meet but no-one takes any responsibility for action.
NATO troops will never be a combative force so are worthless as a deterrent. Whether we like it or not, the Americans hold the key to any negotiated peace because they have the biggest balls at the moment.
One of the best commentaries I’ve read in the wake of the recent Trump-Zelensky contretemps.
Wolfgang Munchau has to be the greatest German name ever.
In calling the European policy “reckless,” the headline understate the craziness of what European leaders are doing–and I specify “leaders” because I doubt much of Europe’s citizenry would be as foolish as their leaders if they were not subjected to constant propaganda.
Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg was reckless. Germany sending the Bismarck into the North Atlantic in May 1941 was reckless. Napoleon’s sending in the Old Guard at Waterloo was reckless. “Reckless” is taking big risks with small chance of success, often based on a flawed understanding of the situation, sometimes combined with desperation. But there is at least some calculation and some chance of success if things go right.
What Europe has been doing is insane and frankly, silly. There is no plausible basis to believe Ukraine can prevail without far greater US support than heretofore, if then, but the US has made it clear it will reduce rather than expand its tangible support, and in fact, seeks a great power rapprochement with Russia, in the face of Chinese actions. In the end, the Russian leadership was willing to go to war over what they see as an existential threat in Ukraine, and Russia has about 5000 nukes. To think that they would accept defeat, is, as Trump said, to risk World War III. For what upside?
Europe’s militaries have virtually no ability to project force as far as Ukraine—hell, in the 1990s they couldn’t intervene in the Balkans without the US handling the logistics and communications, and their armed forces have collapsed since then. The 1990s Balkan small wars were closer and far less challenging than going against the fully mobilized Russian Army and Air Force in Ukraine in 2025. Not to mention that Europe still depends on Russian energy imports.
While they have not said it in so many words, based on what both Russians and Americans have said, it is highly unlikely that Russia will accept NATO troops as peacekeepers along a DMZ or new treaty line. In that context, the mineral deal appears to me to be an effort to join America and Ukraine into a relationship that gives America a real interest in Ukrainian survival, as a substitute for peacekeepers, which is a deal breaker. The US wants that in place before commencing negotiations with Russia, so it cannot become part of those negotiations, with Russia objecting and making it a point of disagreement rather than a fait accompli. Which is why the Americans are so urgent that it be executed NOW. And of course, the US cannot embarrass Russia by saying this publicly, though it probably has been discussed in private and Russia said such an agreement will not torpedo negotiations.
If Ukrainian and European “leaders” would rather posture and score cheap public relations points as if there is no downside to delay and embarrassing your sponsor and protector, well, as an American I say that you cannot save somebody who does not want to be saved. Unfortunately, thousands more men, and not a few women, die or are crippled each week, and the waste and destruction continue, all for no purpose.
Very well put
I agree. An additional sad reality is that, if one were to assume that Russia even could be totally pushed out of Ukraine and capitulate to all Zelensky’s demands, it is not unreasonable to imagine that in a few short years–by election or coup–Ukraine could still end up with a Lukashenko clone as its leader who would turn it into the next Belarus. Even winning the war does not guarantee winning the peace.
Trump, and those who support his strategy, are implicitly assuming that Putin wants the fighting to stop. I haven’t seen any evidence that this is the case. Trump may have had private indications of what Putin’s readiness to lay down arms is but none of the many commentators on this issue, let alone posters on these blogs, have any idea.
Without that knowledge, all speculation is pointless.
Putin has amassed an absurdly large pile of dead Russians, more than any leader since Stalin. Such a stench eventually becomes impossible for any leader to ignore. I doubt that he would ever have sent those tanks into Ukraine in 2022 had he known a million Russians would be dead or wounded as a result. I find the “domino theory” of Putin’s ambitions overwrought. Having lost so much in a proxy war with a non-NATO member a third the size of Russia, he is ill equipped for the consequences of a full on war with NATO members and he knows it.
Problem with your argument is that not many Russians died in Ukraine.
Most of the Canon fodder are ethic minorities of Russia or prisoners enticed by money or cancellation of their sentences.
As if unfairly abused ethnic minorities never cause problems for a leader. Ever heard of Chechnyans?
A nice dose of realism for the Zelenskyy fan boys and girls. After the hysteria wears off and pulses stop pounding in Brussels and the other hidey-holes of fantasy, the top bureaucrats who rule the peoples across the Atlantic will see reason.
When I see someone doing something insane, such as the Europeans here, I stop and ask “What am I missing that could attribute a rational motive to their behavior?” Moreover, European politics has yet to have its Trumpian authenticity/sincerity revolution. Thus, it’s worth parsing the motives of the Eurocrats to see if there’s some hidden motive animating this baffling conduct.
If we follow the money (which is much harder to lie with than words), throughout the invasion Europe has sent billions of dollars to the Russian war economy, even as they empty their military stockpiles to arm Ukraine. Europe needs that energy now, and it will need that energy after the war. However, they are rightly concerned with sending billions to an angry Russia that is no longer bogged down in Ukraine.
This explains why the are haggling so hard for a U.S. guarantee. Essentially, Europe knows the instant this war ends, they are going to become the #1 funder of Russian military rearmament. Europe knows it cannot simultaneously shell out to guarantee peace in Ukraine while also filling Putin’s war-chest. Without an American security guarantee this peace is going to be extremely awkward for Europe. It is much preferrable to have American underwrite the security of the entire continent, so Europe can simultaneously buy Russian gas and cut military spending.
Trump of course, has thus far refused this deal because he knows its a sucker’s bargain for the American people. The Europeans would be enabled to immediately cut spending and outsource deterrence to the U.S. and Ukraine would be emboldened to antagonize Russia since it is backed up by American might. The weekend’s events seem to be a final Hail Mary to put enough money and guilt on the table to move Trump.
Published by RIA, in April 2022:
“Denazification will inevitably be a de-Ukrainization. Ukraine must be abolished because Ukrainism is an artificial anti-Russian construct without its own civilizational content. Self-identified Ukrainians must suffer the hardships of the war and internalize the experience as a historic lesson and atonement for their crime of refusing to be russians.”
Around the same time, Dmitry Medvedev wrote that one of the goals of the” special military operation” was to “change the bloody mindset, full of fraudulent myths, of the people who are Ukrainian today”.
It’s not geopolitics. It’s a drive to erase Ukrainian cultural identity.
Who within the boundaries of Ukraine do you mean by “Ukrainians?” The ethnic Ukrainians, the ethnic Russians, the Hungarians, Romanians and so forth? It’s a multi-ethnic state which is going to require protections for its minorities in a way that the current Kiev regime considers to be anathema.
Please, stop being such a bunch of weak appeasers. Someone stood up to the classroom bully, and the top contributors here are shaking. Churchill would be ashamed.
There was no trap in Washington. Zelenskyy behaved in the same psychologically disturbed way with Treasury secretary Bessent
Does anyone else see the other option? Europe, especially Germany, could opt for closer relations with Moscow. US would be the pariah in Russian tinted FP. Where would that leave US buffer? (Poland would have to be put down, but when have we seen that before?)
What do we do if Zelensky is proven prophetically right about Putins ways and intentions?
This is an honest article and true.
What does everyone expect us to do? We could prosecute a nuclear war. Oh, not that? We could prosecute a conventional WWIII and hope Putin doesn’t go nuclear. Not that either? We could continue to send arms, but Ukraine will run out of fighters before Russia does, and that money will be wasted.
Trump is determined to avoid disaster (cf. above) while at the same time coming up with a creative solution to end the fighting and attempt, at least, a lasting peace.
Those agitating for regime change are probably going to have to wait until Putin is dead.
This article is great in describing posturing of European leaders and power dynamics between various players.
I am less sure about outline of peace and using 1648 as a relevant reference point.
None of the articles and policy papers I read re Ukrainian settlement deals with fundamental question:
Why would Russia respect any deal short of Ukraine membership of NATO?
We had Budapest memorandum guaranteeing Ukrainian independence and territorial integrity.
Did it work? No.
So historical example of possible settlement is either Munich 1938 with slightly longer time frame before Russia attacks again or post ww1 Versaille treaty.
Both failed to prevent further aggression.
The question linked to above is how author proposes to deal with increases in military expenditure in Europe.
He gives various reasons as to why that will be difficult.
But then again, if USA is pulling away from Europe and Europe is unwilling to pay costs of self defence, why Russia should be deterred from further aggression?
Russia is the only power left with colonial mindset.
You can not deal with that by being warm and cuddly.
Russia only understands language of force.
I thought Zelensky was a hero. Still do. The whole thing is deeply depressing. I could weep. My maternal grandmother was Ukrainian. I think Putin is a murderous leader and a terrifying neighbour. Ask Georgia, or Moldova. I wish Russia would be driven out of Ukraine. But what was Zelensky thinking, when he went to the Oval Office? Trump even greeted him at the front door, unlike his treatment of Macron. Why wasn’t he prepared? This should just have been a show up, thank you for all your help, sign, smile and shake hands moment (see Starmer for how it should be done). That’s what was expected. That’s why there were 2 podiums ready. Zelensky was not prepared. If he didn’t like the deal, he shouldn’t have gone. You’re polite, when you’re seeking – needing – a deal. Zelensky wasn’t. I hope Starmer talks him round.
I also disagree with the ‘no point in a ceasefire deal with Putin. He’ll break it.’
It’s cost Russia too much to get this far. If there was to be a next time, they’d have to spend a ton more money, be prepared for tons more Russians to die and I don’t think that can be done. Look back at Finland. Unprovoked aggression against Finland in the Winter War. Thought Finns would fold. Eventually a deal. Had to give up some territory, but Russia didn’t go back for more. I think same here. Ukraine would be very prepared for a second time and I don’t think Putin would try.
And, going forward, it’ll be so hard to get another invasion going. So many young Russian men have been killed or maimed. Russian women don’t want to see their menfolk killed. Afghanistan was a significant factor in the collapse (hurray!) of the Soviet Union. Also, Putin can’t live forever. He’s 72. Must be fearful of a coup, like all dictators. And how long before they could launch another bid (all while Ukraine is rearming and building more defences)? So I think a ceasefire could hold.
I have admired Zelensky more than any current political leader on earth, but a few days ago he blew it, big-time, for himself and his country. He should now be his word and resign. Whether the Ukrainian people recognise the truth of the situation or not is irrelevant. Trump and Vance may be loathsome individuals but they had every right to be angry. Zelensky accepted a deal behind closed doors and then tried to re-litigate it before the cameras, playing a reckless and doomed hand. The European leaders who have collectively hugged him and dried his tears should also, behind closed doors, read him the riot act and tell him to go. Send Zaluzhny back to the US with a pen in his hand and an apology on his lips. Absent that, Ukraine as a country is doomed.
Hear hear! Common sense for once.
Russia has constructed three lines of defence . Please explain how Ukraine can cut through these lines, reach the sea and prevent resupply by Russia of her forces. This is the only way Ukraine can win.
Was the delay by Scholz in providing tanks needed by Ukraine to break through Russian defences, deliberate in order to allow completion of construction of the defences? Putin may have wanted to take Kiev but once this was impossible then he may have been willing to accept keeping the areas Russia had already occupied.
Ukraine’s Offensive Operations: Shifting the Offense-Defence Balance
Stalin said Britain bought time, America supplied materials and Soviet union paid in blood. The delay in providing tanks and mobile artillery gave Russia time to become a defender. It is normally accepted that an attacker needs three times the numbers of a defender to win.
Would the best option to make Ukraine wealthy compared to Russia so that the Russian speakers in occupied Ukraine desire to re-join the Ukraine? It was the desire of people to enjoy the same affluence and freedom of the West which caused Communism to collapse
“Seeking victory, Zelensky walked straight into a trap in the White House last week.” Nah. Not signing the agreement was Zelensky’s strategy; the entrapment was of his own making.