Tag: United Kingdom
Ukraine’s opportunities and threats
Based on proceedings at the Kyiv Security Forum, I’ve already tried to summarize Ukraine’s strengths and weaknesses. Here are some opportunities and threats.
Opportunities still abound
The West still has opportunities to improve Ukraine’s position vis-a-vis Russia, which responds only to actions (not just words):
- Strengthen sanctions, including secondary sanctions against firms doing business with Russia.
- Use Russian assets frozen in Europe and the US to fund Ukrainian defense.
- End European dependence on Russian natural gas, as pledged, by 2027.
- Integrate Ukrainian and European industry to produce more of what Ukraine needs.
- Raise defense spending sharply.
- Exploit any ceasefire to help Ukraine gain against Russia.
- Provide military assets to Ukraine on lend/lease terms.
- Improve Alliance interoperability.
- Deepen relations with Ukraine through the NATO/Ukraine Council.
- Encourage Russian brain drain to the West.
Carpe diem
Europeans, participants in the Forum thought, need to seize the day. Their political will has to match Ukrainian courage. Saturday’s visit of Polish Prime Minister Tusk, French President Macron, UK Prime Minister Starmer, and German Chancellor Merz started that process. The Europeans joined with Ukrainian President Zelensky in issuing an ultimatum for a 30-day ceasefire to begin Monday. So far, Russia has not accepted the proposition.
Having reappropriated the language of peace, the Europeans need now to reach out to the rest of the world. They also need to convince their own right-wing nationalists that Kyiv, not Moscow, merits support. Europe’s position should stay values-based but firm.
The Europeans also need to bring President Trump on board. The Congress is already restraining his worst pro-Putin impulses. The Euros should offer to acquire unique US capabilities and even to pay for deployment of US troops. They should also underline to Trump that peace through strength requires the US to do more for Ukraine. MAGA cannot make America great if it abandons Kyiv.
Russia’s future
The war with Ukraine has degraded the Russian military, compromised its intelligence, and devastated its economy and society. Even while advancing slowly on the ground, Moscow is losing the war. It has achieved none of its objectives. The West has not recognized its annexations or ruled out NATO membership and security guarantees for Ukraine.
While by no means guaranteed, defeat will open the possibility of a democratic transition in Russia. Putin will in any case eventually be gone. Moscow will then have to reconsider its relations with the West. We can hope the Russians will opt for improvement.
The threats are still real
Putin has gone too far to compromise now. His overall objectives have not changed. He wants to eliminate an independent Ukraine. A successful democracy on Russia’s borders is a threat to his regime. If Ukraine loses, Moldova and Lithuania will be next. Appeasement will encourage further aggression. Putin isn’t an idiot or crazy but rather a determined bully. He wants to impose his own rules to make the world safe for kleptocratic autocracy. The closing of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe are precisely what he wants.
NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense guarantee is the only thing that will stop him. But President Trump’s attitude toward NATO, including threats against Greenland, make Europeans doubt that he will do what it requires.
Even if the war ends, the fighting will go on through hybrid warfare. Russia and China will remain allied. Trump’s efforts to separate them will fail. The US should not promote a division of labor that assigns Europe to the Europeans and Asia to the Americans. That would divide the Alliance and limit Europe’s support in Asia.
Putin has effectively used nuclear blackmail to limit US aid to Ukraine. He has also promoted grievances in the West that threaten democratic governance and aim to make autocracy look more attractive. He will continue these successful efforts.
On balance
While the mists of war are still hiding the outcome, Ukraine is far from defeat. Even if Russia could occupy the whole country, which it can’t, many Ukrainians would resist. Putin’s best bet now is a Georgia-style political takeover of Ukraine by forces friendly to Moscow. But that gets less possible with every day of continued conflict. Killing people because of their identity strengthens that identity. Ukrainians are feeling more Ukrainian, not less, due to the war.
Russia is at the point of diminishing returns. Western appeasement would be a serious mistake. Ending Putin’s threat to Ukraine will prevent war elsewhere. That is a worthy cause.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Americans deserve better but may not get it
Trump and Zelensky were doing fine yesterday:
Zelensky had several times challenged Trump. Europeans, Zelensky said, had provided more aid than the US and it did not have to be paid back. He noted Putin’s record of violating agreements, as well as his torture of prisoners and theft of Ukrainian children. Trump was taking it, even though it made him visiblyu uncomfortable.
The culprit was Vance
Things went south about 39:50, when JD Vance chimed in about the virtues of diplomacy rather than force. Zelensky responded “what kind of diplomacy?” But things only went off the rails when Vance then called Zelensky disrespectful. He had not been disrespectful, though he was clearly annoyed that the VP was chiming in. It was Vance who was being disrespectful.
Quarreling at that point was unwise. Zelensky should have said “we’ll have to disagree about the prospects for successful diplomacy.” Or “I agree about diplomacy, but it has to be backed by strength.” Or “diplomacy with security guarantees makes sense to me.” But give the man a break: he was exhausted and tired of these Russian dupes.
Why did Vance do it?
There are several possible explanations for why Vance made the false claim that Zelensky was disrespectful:
- They had met privately in advance of this public session. I had the sense there was already bad blood between them. Maybe it just flowed out.
- Trump and Vance may have agreed that the President would play good cop while the VP played bad cop.
- Vance may have decided the meeting was going too well and that his minders in Moscow would not be pleased.
- Trump and Vance may have (rightly) decided the agreement Zelensky was about to sign was a nothing burger.
Whatever the cause, it was, as Tom Nichols put it in The Atlantic, an ambush. Zelensky was not at fault.
Humpty dumpty
The question now is whether Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again. I doubt it. It was not just this meeting that went badly. Trump’s entire initiative for peace in Ukraine is cockeyed. He is trying to wean Russia from China and make Moscow a friend of the US. That isn’t going to happen. Putin knows his country is nothing without Chinese backing. He certainly won’t trade it for the uncertainties of US support.
But there is no telling with Trump. He is a bad negotiator. He concedes things up front that he needn’t concede. Trump holds back on things that need to be clear up front. He reverses himself even on issues he has said are vital. The European backing for Zelensky should make an honest US president wonder if he has got this right. But of course Trump despises the Euros. And he isn’t honest
America will shrink
That leaves us with a giant split in the NATO Alliance. Trump is aligned with Russia. The Europeans align with Ukraine. But will the Euros get their act together to fill in for the US aid Trump will cancel? If they don’t Putin will win this war. Then after a few years of rearmament he will start a new one in Moldova, then Poland or the Baltics.
America will have shrunk to a Western Hemisphere power pining after Panama and Greenland. And complaining to Mexico and Canada about the drugs Americans are abusing. Washington will be unable and unwilling to defend its allies in either Europe or Asia. Our economy will be noncompetitive due to tariff protection. The society will return to its tradition of white robber baron supremacy. Americans deserve better but may not get it.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Deal, no deal, ceasefire, peace agreement?
Ukrainian President Zelensky will meet Friday with President Trump to sign a minerals agreement the Americans have been insisting on. The Financial Times reports:
The final version of the agreement, dated February 25 and seen by the FT, would establish a fund into which Ukraine would contribute 50 per cent of proceeds from the “future monetisation” of state-owned mineral resources, including oil and gas, and associated logistics. The fund would also be able to invest in projects in Ukraine.
The $500 billion demand has disappeared. No security guarantees are included. The US stake in the fund is unspecified.
Deal, or no deal?
It is hard to know what to think about this, as it all depends on the details and on implementation. It is certainly not common practice for countries providing support to insist on repayment. But Trump is Trump. Personally, I wouldn’t sign anything he offers, but Zelensky is in a difficult spot. I hope he knows what he is doing.
The bigger question is whether this will bring Trump around to supporting Ukraine rather than Russia. I doubt it. Moscow will offer to match any terms Zelensky signs for minerals at least in Russian-occupied Ukraine. Trump won’t resist. Two deals of this sort will solidify partition.
What now?
Trump will continue to insist on peace talks. He desperately wants credit for ending the war. He has already given President Putin most of what Moscow wants. Trump is ready to accept Russian occupation of the territory it controls inside Ukraine. He has blamed Ukraine for the war. And he no doubt wants to end the shipment of arms to what he regards as the losing side.
Ukraine can do without the arms, at least for the next year or so. President Biden shipped ample supplies. The more important question is whether the US is prepared to continue providing intelligence. That is vital to Ukraine’s targeting. Also important to Ukraine is the use of Elon Musk’s StarLink satellite network, which it uses for military communications.
Trump’s reluctance to continue supporting Ukraine makes the Europeans more important than ever. If they step up their military supplies, Ukraine has a chance to outlast Russia in the current war of attrition. If they don’t, Kyiv’s manpower shortage will become ever more visible and relevant. Ukraine needs both Europe’s arms and its economic and financial support.
What about peace?
If Trump continues to insist, a ceasefire is a real possibility. Both Ukraine and Russia need a respite, during which they will resupply and reorganize for renewed fighting. The Europeans are saying they are prepared to observe a ceasefire. But the confrontation line is 600 miles long, with forces on both sides stronger than any the Europeans will deploy. The experience of monitoring a much shorter confrontation line in southern Lebanon does not bode well.
Neither Kyiv nor Moscow seems to me prepared to compromise on their basic war aims. Russia wants to limit Ukraine’s sovereign choices, like joining NATO. Ukraine wants Russia out of all of its territory, including Crimea. There may be a mutually hurting stalemate, but there is no mutually enticing way out. A ceasefire will give both sides time to contemplate whether one exists, but they certainly haven’t defined one yet.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The hour of Europe really has arrived
The three-year anniversary of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine has come and gone, with lots of fanfare. But nothing more discordant than the US vote in the General Assembly. Washington voted with Moscow and its friends against a resolution condemning the invasion. For the Trump Administration, calling an invasion aggression was just too much.
The real estate mogul views war
Trump has upended US policy on Ukraine. He has blamed Kyiv for the Russian invasion and asked for repayment of US aid. The Americans are talking with Russia about an end to the war without Ukrainians or Europeans in the room.
But none of that is the worst. The core problem is not procedural or rhetorical. It is the solution Trump will favor. He sees the war as a fight over territory, which he will propose to divide. Russia will keep whatever it has conquered and Ukraine will get the rest. This is a real estate mogul’s view of war. He takes a similar view of Gaza. It’s about territory for him. Get rid of the people and rebuild to Israel’s specifications, which means no Palestinians.
I need hardly mention that he is treating Panama, Canada, and Greenland with the same territorial eye.
It’s about sovereignty, not territory
But Ukraine is not about territory. Nor are Panama, Canada, and Greenland. Or even Gaza. In all these places the real issue is sovereignty, not territory. The Canada proposition is an obvious bad joke. It has already caused Canadians to look more to the UK and Europe for their future security. They are correct to do so.
But Panama and Greenland have good reason to fear Trump’s intentions. Neither is strong enough on its own to resist. The 1989 American invasion of Panama is forgotten in America, but it is living memory in Panama. Greenland has no military, and Denmark has a tiny one (16,000 total). Pituffik Space Base, until recently Thule Air Base, has fewer than 1000 Americans and contractors. If the US wanted to expand it, Denmark would no doubt have tried to cooperate. The Danes would also welcome US investment in mineral exploration and exploitation in Greenland. But Trump’s insistence on buying the island, and threatening that otherwise he’ll take it by force, will generate resistance. Denmark is small, but sovereign.
Sovereignty isn’t divisible, but it is shareable
The problem with sovereignty is that it isn’t divisible. But it is shareable. The European Union is a case of shared sovereignty. Its currency, the euro, belongs to no single member state. Likewise its common market and its rules for the circulation of people, capital, and services.
The Minsk I and II agreements that Moscow and Kyiv negotiated, but never implemented, entailed shared sovereignty. Let’s leave aside who would have benefited most and who was responsible for their non-implementation. They would have required Kyiv to devolve authority. That would have given Moscow a good deal of say in the governance of Russian speakers in Donbas. But it would have left the rest of Ukraine unconstrained.
Putin wants it all
For Putin, Ukraine is not about territory. He will accept a ceasefire. But he will not respect a serious solution that leaves even part of Ukraine as a sovereign state. That would mean Kyiv can make its own choices, like joining NATO, or developing nuclear weapons. Russia wouldn’t like that.
I still have some hope that Europe will step into the gap the US is leaving. The Europeans have more at risk. They have also paid more to date:
If Europe comes up with the $700 billion rumored, that would give Ukraine the means to outlast Putin. It would also give Europe the clout to counterbalance the US. Those are two desirable outcomes, under current circumstances.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Ukraine doesn’t like Trump’s surrender
Ukrainian President Zelensky is understandably an unhappy man. President Trump organized a meeting to discuss Ukraine behind his back. Trump also conceded most of what the Russians were seeking in advance. Besides the continued Russian occupation of 20% of Ukraine, Trump is prepared to meet other Russian demands. They include no NATO membership for Ukraine, no US forces in Ukraine, and sanctions relief for Russia. It is rumored Trump has also agreed to withdrawal of US forces from other Russian neighbors.
Why?
The US interests the Administration has cited are economic and geopolitical. That is bogus. Russia’s economy at this point is smaller than Spain’s. Alienating Europe, a wealthy market of over 500 million people (EU+UK), to curry economic favor with Russia is absurd. Its population is less than 145 million and its GDP smaller than California’s or Texas’. Russia’s giant Eurasian land mass is of little interest to the US. America has greater oil and gas reserves and produces much more of both. We bought the most important part Russian territory in 1867. It is now called Alaska.
Besides, Russia is now firmly aligned, as a vassal state, with China. Putin couldn’t get out of that relationship if he wanted to. But he doesn’t want to.
One reason for Trump’s capitulation was seated at the negotiating table. Dmitry Rybolovlev, one of Putin’s favorite billionaires, bought a house in Palm Beach from Trump in 2008 for $95 million. Trump had paid less than $42 million for it four years earlier. Even in Palm Beach, that’s wild. Dmitry must have had very good reasons making his money disappear. Trump collaborated in the laundering. If this were a mafia movie, you would know what having him sit in the negotiations yesterday means.
US interests
This is not even appeasement. It is capitulation. There is no reason for Ukraine or the US to give in at this point. Russia has been making very slow progress in attacking Ukraine at very high cost. The war has eliminated Russia as a peer military competitor to the US, if it ever was one. That alone is worth the aid we’ve given Kyiv.
Ukraine is also bleeding, but that is Zelensky’s problem, not Trump’s. Zelensky wants a decent negotiated solution, not the capitulation Trump is offering. Yesterday Turkiye President Erdogan backed Ukraine’s “indisputable” sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Fortunately, the Europeans are said to be assembling a 700 billion euro package for Ukraine. That far exceeds all US assistance to Ukraine, which totals $183 billion. It is a good thing for the US. If Trump’s supporters want to claim credit for getting the Europeans to do it, I’ll gladly applaud with one hand. But the Europeans need to move as quickly as possible after the German election this weekend. Derailing a bad settlement is vital.
Perfidy unlimited
Trump has also tried to shake down Ukraine for $500 billion in mineral deposits, or maybe more. Zelensky has made it clear that deal isn’t going anywhere. He is correct to do so. If anyone should pay for the US aid to Ukraine, it is Russia, which invaded. Asking the victim to pay is a new level of perfidy for Trump, though consistent with past behavior.
The United States should be offering the full support that Erdogan is voicing. Instead, a president who is dismantling the US government is doing the same to its alliances and interests abroad. These will be days that live in infamy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Europe needs to unify and toughen up, fast
Yes, the US is trying to exclude Europe from an issue of vital European interest. No, it is not the first time.
Why Washington excludes Europe
My personal familiarity with this apparently undiplomatic behavior dates from the Dayton agreements that end the Bosnian war. The Europeans were present, but excluded from the key decisions. Holbooke was convinced that they would only complicate things and slow the negotiations. So he ordered Bob Gallucci to get them involved in an endless discussion of the international police force. Should it have executive authority, as the Americans wanted, or not, as the European insisted?
The tactic worked. Only the Germans, who worked bilaterally with the Americans without EU cover, had any impact at Dayton. Holbrooke encouraged Bonn, to prevent a united European consensus against him. The other Europeans had no significant role. The British and French complained bitterly without effect. But they and the rest of the EU were left holding the bag–they paid for much of the reconstruction.
Something similar had happened a few years earlier in the reunification of Germany. The Americans agreed to a 2+4 (two Germanies plus the four occupying powers) format for the diplomacy. But Washington then prevented most important issues from getting on the 2+4 agenda. The format was a fig leaf for US and (West) German decisions.
I’m sure there are many other examples.
The Ukraine negotiations
The Americans are trying the same trick now in the Ukraine negotiations. They intend to work directly with the Russians, excluding not only the UK and EU but also Ukraine. Washington wants to avoid the complications and delays dealing with them would cause. It again intends to leave the Europeans holding the bag. They will be expected not only to pay for the reconstruction but also to field peacekeepers.
The Americans have already made one big mistake. They have telegraphed what they are up to. Defense Secretary Hegseth’s scolded the Europeans at NATO. President Trump’s undertook his talk with Russian President Putin without consultation with allies. The Russian and American Foreign Ministers are meeting this week in Riyadh. Vice President Vance’s offensive talk at the Munich Security Conference told the Europeans all they needed to know.
The US is moving to conclude the Ukraine war on Moscow’s terms. That means surrendering Ukrainian territory for peace. The Americans want, as they have for several presidencies, to pivot away from the defense of Europe. They are also playing to their domestic audience, some of which is Russophilic and anti-European.
What the Europeans need to do now
Amply alerted, the Europeans are reacting quicker than usual. Key states are meeting in Paris today to plan what to do. Here is what I would suggest:
- They agree to monitor a peace settlement only if it in principle preserves Ukraine’s pre-2014 sovereignty and territorial integrity.
- They supply Ukraine with all the weapons and intelligence it needs to win, substituting for any shortfalls from the US.
- Europeans should examine any agreement reached without their presence on its merits, but with prejudice.
- They deploy trainers and technicians to Ukraine to help with both military and civilian tasks.
The Americans won’t like this. They may even try something like what Holbrooke did: convince a big country like Germany or Poland to cooperate bilaterally. That would block a European consensus. But so long as Europe continues to insist on point 1 above, they won’t be stuck with a bad deal.
Trump is different
The difference between Holbrooke’s exclusion of the Europeans and Trump’s is significant. President Clinton, Holbrooke’s boss, backed the NATO alliance and was sympathetic to the EU, which then included the UK. After Dayton, there was no need for a continuing rift between Europe and the US. The agreements reached accorded with European preferences. The rift ended quickly and Europe carried a big burden post-war.
The same won’t happen with Trump. He is unsympathetic to alliances in general, NATO in particular, and the EU most of all. The Americans are pushing for an agreement that will encourage future Russian aggression. If Europe is going to punch at least its weight in future trans-Atlantic issues, it needs to unify and toughen up, fast.
RSS - Posts
