To those who reject Donald Trump’s approach to Ukraine, I ask: what is your plan? More fighting? More death? Perhaps another summit – cocktails with Klaus – at which Western leaders can pledge their support for a cause they were never quite prepared to pay for.
Since Trump came to office there’s been much anguish about the death of the so-called “rules based order”. This system did not stop Hamas taking hostages or Netanyahu killing Gazans (and I’d wager Bibi has even less risk of seeing the inside of The Hague than Putin does).
Crucially, it did not stop Russia invading Ukraine three years ago – a crime that never occurred under Trump and which, he claims, he deterred by threatening to “hit” Moscow. In short, everything Trump is trying to fix, from Chinese aggression to drug trafficking, began under the very rules-based order we are being invited to mourn.
As for Ukraine, the war is going badly, and the longer it continues, the more land Ukraine is likely to lose. Last year, Stephen Kotkin, an eminent historian of Russia, gave an interview in which he observed that to achieve stated Ukrainian war goals – the total recovery of lost territory, Putin on trial – “you have to take Moscow”.
While Joe Biden bound Zelensky’s hands on the battlefield, Putin transformed Russia into a siege economy and saw off the only serious attempt at a coup. Hence Ukraine’s best bet now is to try to win the peace by integrating into Europe and attracting defence guarantees. “To get to that road, you need an armistice”.
Recognising this, Zelensky has offered to resign for peace or Nato membership. Trump would presumably be happy for Europe to defend a free Ukraine – so long as we are willing to cover the tab. This kind of bluff-calling has also prodded the Arabs to discuss rebuilding Gaza, terrified that Trump will transform it into a golf course instead.
His approach might be brutal, but is it irrational? Trump’s claims that Ukraine started the war or Zelensky is a dictator are certainly bizarre and offensive; insisting Kyiv sell its mineral resources suggests a return to amoral imperialism.
But look at it from Washington’s point-of-view. This isn’t the Cold War: Russia doesn’t want to conquer the world, and bullying its neighbours poses no direct threat to the US. Trump fears China more; a domestic fiscal collapse even greater. He’s just ordered the Pentagon to cut 8 per cent from its budget, probably to spook military staff into shifting cash from their priorities (promoting trans rights in Upper Volta) to his (guarding the border).
His strategy is “ask for everything and take what you can get”, and he’ll get away with it because the US is the free world’s dominant nation. Why does it enjoy a monopoly on hard power? Because Europe can’t be bothered to do the job itself. For too long, it has defined the rules while expecting America to uphold the order, an arrangement that is neither ethical nor sustainable.
Take our increasingly ridiculous country. On the same day he mused about committing British troops to Ukraine, Keir Starmer was also reported to be reluctant to spend over 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence. We are a decadent welfare state trying to act hard in the face of Russia.
Nothing looked more absurd than those photos of porky Keir in his extra-large fatigues – normally used to camouflage a tank – playing at being a soldier at a Nato base in Estonia. We all know that, as a human rights lawyer, his first instinct isn’t to deploy the Army but to sue it.
The curse of Zelensky, a genuinely brave man, has been to encourage emulation among weaker politicians, leaders who imagine they can fight a proxy war for Western values abroad as, all the while, said values dissipate back home.
Last week, a 74-year-old woman was arrested in Scotland for standing near an abortion clinic holding a sign that read “coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.” What kind of democracy is this?
A small island, drifting into irrelevance
I’ve returned from a holiday in Estonia, which is a living museum. Old Tallinn is lovingly preserved by Unesco. The antique shops sell Soviet-era tat, perused with the shameful air of men in a porn store (yes, I added a Lenin badge to my collection). And at the Olde Hansa restaurant you can enjoy an immersive Medieval feast served by wenches, accompanied by troubadours. Even the lavatory is authentic.
Helsinki is worth a day trip by ferry if you like fish. On the way back, I went onto the upper deck – crowded with smokers ignoring the numerous “no smoking signs” – and took in deep yogic breaths of Baltic air. It’s invigorating: like glugging liquid oxygen.
I liked the Estonians, who are polite but unfriendly – just as the Brits used to be – and I hope to see more of eastern Europe before Putin steals it. Sitting on my bedside table was volume 2 of Kotkin’s massive biography of Stalin, which I recommend highly. He reports that in 1935, Anthony Eden visited the Kremlin, describing it as “Aladdin’s cave, glittering with history.”
Eden glanced at a map of Europe and said: “England is such a small island.” Stalin replied: “Yes, a small island, but a lot depends on it.” Those were the days!
To those who reject Donald Trump’s approach to Ukraine, I ask: what is your plan? More fighting? More death? Perhaps another summit – cocktails with Klaus – at which Western leaders can pledge their support for a cause they were never quite prepared to pay for.
Since Trump came to office there’s been much anguish about the death of the so-called “rules based order”. This system did not stop Hamas taking hostages or Netanyahu killing Gazans (and I’d wager Bibi has even less risk of seeing the inside of The Hague than Putin does).
Crucially, it did not stop Russia invading Ukraine three years ago – a crime that never occurred under Trump and which, he claims, he deterred by threatening to “hit” Moscow. In short, everything Trump is trying to fix, from Chinese aggression to drug trafficking, began under the very rules-based order we are being invited to mourn.
As for Ukraine, the war is going badly, and the longer it continues, the more land Ukraine is likely to lose. Last year, Stephen Kotkin, an eminent historian of Russia, gave an interview in which he observed that to achieve stated Ukrainian war goals – the total recovery of lost territory, Putin on trial – “you have to take Moscow”.
While Joe Biden bound Zelensky’s hands on the battlefield, Putin transformed Russia into a siege economy and saw off the only serious attempt at a coup. Hence Ukraine’s best bet now is to try to win the peace by integrating into Europe and attracting defence guarantees. “To get to that road, you need an armistice”.
Recognising this, Zelensky has offered to resign for peace or Nato membership. Trump would presumably be happy for Europe to defend a free Ukraine – so long as we are willing to cover the tab. This kind of bluff-calling has also prodded the Arabs to discuss rebuilding Gaza, terrified that Trump will transform it into a golf course instead.
His approach might be brutal, but is it irrational? Trump’s claims that Ukraine started the war or Zelensky is a dictator are certainly bizarre and offensive; insisting Kyiv sell its mineral resources suggests a return to amoral imperialism.
But look at it from Washington’s point-of-view. This isn’t the Cold War: Russia doesn’t want to conquer the world, and bullying its neighbours poses no direct threat to the US. Trump fears China more; a domestic fiscal collapse even greater. He’s just ordered the Pentagon to cut 8 per cent from its budget, probably to spook military staff into shifting cash from their priorities (promoting trans rights in Upper Volta) to his (guarding the border).
His strategy is “ask for everything and take what you can get”, and he’ll get away with it because the US is the free world’s dominant nation. Why does it enjoy a monopoly on hard power? Because Europe can’t be bothered to do the job itself. For too long, it has defined the rules while expecting America to uphold the order, an arrangement that is neither ethical nor sustainable.
Take our increasingly ridiculous country. On the same day he mused about committing British troops to Ukraine, Keir Starmer was also reported to be reluctant to spend over 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence. We are a decadent welfare state trying to act hard in the face of Russia.
Nothing looked more absurd than those photos of porky Keir in his extra-large fatigues – normally used to camouflage a tank – playing at being a soldier at a Nato base in Estonia. We all know that, as a human rights lawyer, his first instinct isn’t to deploy the Army but to sue it.
The curse of Zelensky, a genuinely brave man, has been to encourage emulation among weaker politicians, leaders who imagine they can fight a proxy war for Western values abroad as, all the while, said values dissipate back home.
Last week, a 74-year-old woman was arrested in Scotland for standing near an abortion clinic holding a sign that read “coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.” What kind of democracy is this?
A small island, drifting into irrelevance
I’ve returned from a holiday in Estonia, which is a living museum. Old Tallinn is lovingly preserved by Unesco. The antique shops sell Soviet-era tat, perused with the shameful air of men in a porn store (yes, I added a Lenin badge to my collection). And at the Olde Hansa restaurant you can enjoy an immersive Medieval feast served by wenches, accompanied by troubadours. Even the lavatory is authentic.
Helsinki is worth a day trip by ferry if you like fish. On the way back, I went onto the upper deck – crowded with smokers ignoring the numerous “no smoking signs” – and took in deep yogic breaths of Baltic air. It’s invigorating: like glugging liquid oxygen.
I liked the Estonians, who are polite but unfriendly – just as the Brits used to be – and I hope to see more of eastern Europe before Putin steals it. Sitting on my bedside table was volume 2 of Kotkin’s massive biography of Stalin, which I recommend highly. He reports that in 1935, Anthony Eden visited the Kremlin, describing it as “Aladdin’s cave, glittering with history.”
Eden glanced at a map of Europe and said: “England is such a small island.” Stalin replied: “Yes, a small island, but a lot depends on it.” Those were the days!