Putin has made clear his bottom line ahead of the crunch trilateral talks. He wants a maximalist result including the withdrawal of Ukrainian Forces from the four internationally recognised Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson: regions that Russia had formally recognised as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Additionally, he requires a red line guarantee that Ukraine will not be admitted to Nato, which is a de facto guarantee that he can come back for more at a later date.
British Defence Intelligence estimated yesterday that at the current rate of progress it would take Putin’s forces over four years and almost two million more casualties dead or wounded to take those oblasts by force. This, in addition to the over a million casualties Russia has already suffered including 250,000 killed or missing presumed dead. To achieve his demands on the battlefield, Putin would have to put Russia through twice the suffering it has seen so far and run a severe risk of revolt at home.
Such a bold, and in any other circumstances unrealistic, set of demands tell us that the seasoned negotiator and former KGB handler, Putin, believes he can outfox President Donald Trump. It is peace at all costs that the US president would seem to desire, and when he is negotiating someone else’s country away, it is a pragmatic thing to do to achieve the aim.
My personal belief is that history shows that this war of aggression, which is part of a wider Putin aspiration to restore the old Russian Empire and achieve dominance in Europe, can only be resolved by a Russian defeat that would lead to real deterrence. But that is not what is on offer.
The next few days and hours will write the future for our children and grandchildren. The future defeat of the West, which is what is coming down the line as the result of a bad peace deal, would not see a repeat of the Holocaust. It would see a new Russian dominated Europe. The people with most to fear would be the blue-haired protesters on our campuses and in our streets, as well as the LGBTQ+ community who would certainly cease to exist. A newly dominant Russia would and could not tolerate such diversity and certainly not any form of dissent.
But can President Zelensky walk away from a deal? I am not sure he has any choice in the matter. Only the US can broker a deal. Only America can give security guarantees. What we will likely have is a Cyprus type outcome, with Russia gifted the time to re-equip and re-arm for round two. Europe will be a loser with Ukraine the worst sufferer – a 21st century Czechoslovakia.
Can Europe re-arm and present a deterrent? Unlikely. The European position reflects the Nato position, more or less. The hawks who see a real danger want to re-arm and resist: this includes the Scandinavians and Baltics plus Poland, Germany and the UK – and to an extent, France and Italy. But for the UK, France and Italy the budget is just not available without hard choices elsewhere. The Southerns have neither the money nor the sense of urgency regarding Russia, and some nations – like Hungary – actively flirt with Putin.
The consensus is just not there. Years of reliance on US protection and a general distaste for all things defence has rendered Europe militarily impotent. We are in the hands of President Trump. Let’s hope he gets us a deal we can survive.
There will be a deal of some kind for the simple, ironic reason that Russia – and President Putin in particular – cannot survive a no-deal.
Putin has made clear his bottom line ahead of the crunch trilateral talks. He wants a maximalist result including the withdrawal of Ukrainian Forces from the four internationally recognised Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson: regions that Russia had formally recognised as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Additionally, he requires a red line guarantee that Ukraine will not be admitted to Nato, which is a de facto guarantee that he can come back for more at a later date.
British Defence Intelligence estimated yesterday that at the current rate of progress it would take Putin’s forces over four years and almost two million more casualties dead or wounded to take those oblasts by force. This, in addition to the over a million casualties Russia has already suffered including 250,000 killed or missing presumed dead. To achieve his demands on the battlefield, Putin would have to put Russia through twice the suffering it has seen so far and run a severe risk of revolt at home.
Such a bold, and in any other circumstances unrealistic, set of demands tell us that the seasoned negotiator and former KGB handler, Putin, believes he can outfox President Donald Trump. It is peace at all costs that the US president would seem to desire, and when he is negotiating someone else’s country away, it is a pragmatic thing to do to achieve the aim.
My personal belief is that history shows that this war of aggression, which is part of a wider Putin aspiration to restore the old Russian Empire and achieve dominance in Europe, can only be resolved by a Russian defeat that would lead to real deterrence. But that is not what is on offer.
The next few days and hours will write the future for our children and grandchildren. The future defeat of the West, which is what is coming down the line as the result of a bad peace deal, would not see a repeat of the Holocaust. It would see a new Russian dominated Europe. The people with most to fear would be the blue-haired protesters on our campuses and in our streets, as well as the LGBTQ+ community who would certainly cease to exist. A newly dominant Russia would and could not tolerate such diversity and certainly not any form of dissent.
But can President Zelensky walk away from a deal? I am not sure he has any choice in the matter. Only the US can broker a deal. Only America can give security guarantees. What we will likely have is a Cyprus type outcome, with Russia gifted the time to re-equip and re-arm for round two. Europe will be a loser with Ukraine the worst sufferer – a 21st century Czechoslovakia.
Can Europe re-arm and present a deterrent? Unlikely. The European position reflects the Nato position, more or less. The hawks who see a real danger want to re-arm and resist: this includes the Scandinavians and Baltics plus Poland, Germany and the UK – and to an extent, France and Italy. But for the UK, France and Italy the budget is just not available without hard choices elsewhere. The Southerns have neither the money nor the sense of urgency regarding Russia, and some nations – like Hungary – actively flirt with Putin.
The consensus is just not there. Years of reliance on US protection and a general distaste for all things defence has rendered Europe militarily impotent. We are in the hands of President Trump. Let’s hope he gets us a deal we can survive.
There will be a deal of some kind for the simple, ironic reason that Russia – and President Putin in particular – cannot survive a no-deal.