We have been overwhelmed with commentary on the situation in Ukraine during the last week. The situation seems to be that both sides are exhausted and would like a solution if one was possible. Russia has greater resources and manpower, but the Ukrainians are far more ingenious and have given the Russians a very hard time, but at considerable cost to themselves. Russia thought an occupation would be easy, and got a rude shock.
Putin’s goal
Putin wants to restore the old boundaries of the USSR which existed in Stalin’s time, with a string of client states between the motherland and mainland Europe. Previous rulers would not tolerate these client states trying to break free from Russia’s orbit, as previous interventions in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 demonstrated. Despite the population of Belarus wanting a freer regime they have been firmly kept in line as a Russian client state. But other former client states in Europe such as Poland and the Baltic states have now broken free and desperately want to stay free of Russia’s orbit. Several countries such as Slovakia, Hungary and Serbia seem to want to maintain relations with both sides, but I do not think they wish to go back under Russia’s influence.
I think Putin also wants to put himself in the Pantheon of previous Russian Tzars by making Russia, in his mind, a great empire once again.
A shift in American priorities
Former President Biden thought in the old Cold War way, regarding Russia as a threat which had to be contained. His policy seemed to be to simply give Ukraine enough weapons to contain Russia, but not enough to actually defeat it. But now we have a new regime in the White House whose outlook seems to go back to America’s pre 1945 approach of isolationism, when America tried to keep itself free of European entanglements. It only came into the Second World War when directly attacked, ironically, from the East. I think it is important to remember that America’s current policies are not just due to the maverick nature of President Trump but reverting to a previous isolationist tradition which has much support in the country. You also have to remember where America is geographically. Threats from Europe appear remote. What is perhaps of more concern to many Americans are threats from the East, and China in particular, which is building up its military very fast. Many Americans feel resources currently spent in Europe would be better spent protecting them from China, and defending Taiwan in particular.
Of all the experts I have heard or read discussing Ukraine, perhaps the one who makes most sense to me was Kim Darroch who was British Ambassador to the USA during Trump’s first term. He said Trump looks at the world as to what is best for America. He is not pro-Putin or Pro-Europe. He just sees a problem which is absorbing American resources and he just wants to settle it in America’s interests. “America First” was his slogan.
Where does that leave Europe?
The 1945 Labour Government helped set up the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) after the Second World War. Its achievement was to secure American support for Europe against possible Russian advancement. I can just remember the Berlin Airlift in 1948 (my father was involved with it) when the Russians tried to cut off Berlin, and this triggered the establishment of NATO. NATO has worked, containing Russian expansion, and Eastern European states have been keen to join. But it has worked because America has been prepared to commit significant resources to it. As a result many European states have been able to spend a relatively small amount on defence. The European average is under 2% of Gross Domestic Product, America is over 3%, and Russia, so far as we know, is almost 6%. ( Ukraine incidentally, spends 37% which is unsustainable.) In view of a perceived Russian threat Europeans are being urged to up what they spend, and the Americans certainly feel the current imbalance between them and Europe is unfair.
What must be done? The UK must spend more on defence, whatever happens in Ukraine. This may be unpalatable to a government strapped for cash, but it has to be done. Ukraine faces us with a moral challenge as well as a military one. I feel it would be wrong to abandon a country which is trying to support our values of freedom and democracy to Russian aggression. The solutions to the War being proposed at present all require some sort of peacekeeping force in which the UK would have to play a part. To do so we need a bigger defence budget and more manpower. Keir Starmer faces a real challenge. He has to manage an unexpected financial challenge and a political one of trying to secure American support for peacekeeping. He needs our support for this.
But there is another possibility. European countries need to stand firm and not deny Ukraine the right to join NATO at a future date. Putin will not like this, but it would be a more effective deterrent to Russian aggression in Ukraine than a peace force which might be difficult to sustain and will only work with American support. This would mean strong leadership from Keir Starmer and other European leaders. Britain has to take the lead.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
