Best Of

I don't understand the European Ukraine play. It seems that Russia will only end the war if they can claim a victory (the Donbas at a minimum, presumably) and that Ukraine will only end the war if they are defeated (or, a negotiated peace with cast iron Western-backed security guarantees - boots on the ground presumably via NATO or another structure).

Therefore what are we playing at? It seems like the options are simple:

• Let Russia defeat Ukraine.
  
• Help Ukraine push Russia out of their borders.
  
• Tell Russia that if they don't accept a negotiated settlement (probably less than the whole Donbas with western bases in Ukraine) then Europe/UK will use all their military might to achieve the above.
  

What else is there, realistically?

Rope a dope.

Help Ukraine absorb Russia's attacks until Russia is tired and exhausted and collapses. Which looks like coming soon, which is why Russia's shills are getting increasingly shrill about the need for "peace".

Yes but that relies upon American support and American sanctions.

If Europe wants to do this alone, then I can't see any alternative to the above.

I don't see why.

Russia has an economy smaller than Italy's.

The UK with Poland, Germany, other European allies, Canada and others absolutely can help Ukraine defeat Russia - even without America if need be. Rather with, but if need be without.

There was a chat on R5L last week, where one of the phone callers said something like: "We cannot fight Russia, as they have such a massive economy and are such a world power". This is utterly bogus, and the interviewer did not pick him up on it.

The "Russia stronk!" myth has been dead for decades, but people still revere its stinking corpse.

I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.

Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.

We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)

Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US.
The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.

Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order.
No skin in the game, no say.

All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.

He said that the expense was a long way behind stopping the killing. Great farmland though Ukraine no doubt has, it is bodies, said Trump, that are stopping the bullets.

He says he wants to stop the killing as a primary aim. I have no doubt he also wants to go down in history as the Peacemaker President who touched the world with his hands and, lo, the world reacted. But he said he wanted to stop the killing.

But isn't that what Chamberlain thought he was doing at Munich? Hitler's assurance was not worth the paper it was written on.

Chamberlain sought peace, but simultaneously prepared for war.

Trump isn't fit to lick Chamberlain's boots.

I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.

Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.

We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)

Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US.
The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.

Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order.
No skin in the game, no say.

All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.

I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.

The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.

Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.

The last sentence is absolutely key. The US has not funded NATO for the last 80 years out of the goodness of its heart, it's because it has allowed the US to set the rules. That has delivered huge material benefits to the US, far outweighing the costs. On its own, the US is a huge and incredibly wealthy market, but alone it cannot support the ambitions and needs of its commercial and financial sectors. Pax Americana was a boon to them. Pax Europa, if it happens, will inevitably cost them dear.

Starmer is all in.

No way to back out of this now.

He'll have to resign if he ends up somehow having to dump Zelensky for Trump's Putinist USA.

These are the highest of stakes a PM gets to play.

UK Prime Minister
@10DowningStreet

The UK will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

https://x.com/10DowningStreet/status/1895950498576154630

I am going to stick my neck out and say that he will honour his pledge. I don't like Starmer or his politics but I think he has a brain and he also has a moral code. I am going to do something very rare and trust him to be doing the right thing for the right reasons.

Of course on all other matters my normal cynicism is maintained but in this instance I think he is genuine.

I disagree, I’m the other way. There is absolutely no way Putin will agree to allow what’s left of Ukraine to join NATO, will never sign anything allowing that, so Starmer and Europe are locked on course to selling out Ukraine. Wave after wave of talks will fall on the question of NATO membership until Starmer and Europe will insist Ukraine cuts a deal that will never be justified or fair, in order to make the war stop.

There is no “win win” or lasting peace option from where it is now, so all hugs in Downing Street and elsewhere in Europe have to be seen as ultimately leading to that betrayal and an unfair deal for Ukraine forced on them. that in itself will set the precedent sovereign borders can be redrawn, that will be music to the Kremlin’s ears.

What happens, if U.K. and France form a security alliance that includes a bunch of European states and Ukraine? Complete with a nuclear guarantee.

If in a deal from talks, Putin doesn’t sign such a deal, so the war goes on. The only deal Putin will sign is a deal leaving a weak and exposed Ukraine his country can interfere with.

The security guarantees you suggest outside of negotiated deal? To be honest, UK and France won’t sign that, or anything with security guarantees from them that could easily trigger a bigger crisis than this one, drag them into this or a larger conflict. If I’m right, then yes, all these hugs are very short termist and very hollow.

How would you answer the question of how independent is the UK nuclear deterrent, to be able to commit it as you suggest? All the Chagos investigation I have been doing, has left me with impression UK defence and security is so very much woven in with the US. UK has down the decades become locked and interlocked with US on defence and intelligence, I think it is in part what has led us to the Chagos Deal US and India want us to sign, and leaves a genuine question how quickly UK could untangle itself from US and become independent, if it really needed to. If I am right in that as well, we have to acknowledge the part it plays in all Whitehall decisions taken.

I don’t see any posts to PB taking into account how deeply UK is in bed with US on military technology and intelligence, and acknowledging the huge impact this has on political decision making.

I literally posted exactly this with regard to Five Eyes earlier this afternoon. A repeat of the same posting I made yesterday.

Correct. It's a very well known problem, that we already encountered a year or more ago with Storm Shadow, with Biden saying "not over Russia". There were reports in summer 2024 about how the US was refusing to allow its capabilities, which were needed, to be used.

Given that the USA has turned something between indifferent and hostile, Europe will need sovereign capabilities across the board over time - and to isolate an isolationist USA.

This is ITAR regs (internation Traffic in Arms Regulations), which have been in a thing since 1976, and I have been reading articles about in the trade press since the 1980s. The USA have used them to control supply of arms to third countries, sometimes to benefit their own industry, and in missiles, for example, there has been an emphasis in Europe of making arms ITAR-proof for a couple of decades. It was one of their perks for providing overarching security, reserve currency etc - Trump and Vance burnt that down, and the world is changing, including for them.

Here's an Economist piece from 2008 about how that had THEN driven a fall in US share of the satellite market from 83% to 50%:

The result is a system that is too successful in keeping American technology out of foreign hands. Before 1999, when the State Department took over the export regulation of satellites, America dominated commercial satellite-making with an average market share of 83%. Since then, this share has declined to 50%, according to Space Review. ITAR's critics blame the change in export controls. As bidding opened in July this year for the €3.4 billion ($5 billion) of contracts for Galileo, a constellation of 30 positioning satellites being built by the European Union and the European Space Agency, European officials cited export controls as a reason for avoiding anything to do with America wherever possible.
https://archive.is/DWCxN#selection-1211.1-1215.372

I've been pointing out for some time that one of President Chump's problems is that the USA is nothing like as dominant in reality as it is in his head, which is stuck somewhere between the 1950s and the 1970s. They had 40% of world GDP in 1960; now it is under 25%.

He just walked into a lamp post wrt 'I can pull a peace settlement out of thin air in one day', and felt he had to deflect blame onto Zelenskyy because of his overblown ego, which has resulted in him looking globally like the self-obsessed he has become. There are a lot more lamp posts down the road.