If anything was going to make Donald Trump come around to supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia, ‘rare earth minerals’ – an issue of increasing geopolitical importance in the global competition with China – would not have made it to the top of most lists. Yet the US president has hinted this could be the key to the continuation of US investment in the nation as Russia’s war rages on. The proposal hasn’t impressed everyone – German chancellor Olaf Scholz has called the plan to make money from the war ‘selfish’ – but President Zelensky is open to the idea.
Europe cannot afford to outsource our security to the whims of voters in swing states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio
That won’t come as much of a surprise, given what Trump had threatened before he became President. Even now, the American press is reporting that Trump’s administration remains split on how to end the Russian war in Ukraine, with his top team swaying between forcing the country to capitulate to Vladimir Putin and forcing Putin to back down. If Trump did proceed with the latter option, how exactly would the West ensure that any ceasefire deal actually holds up and deters Russia from returning to Ukraine?
I’ve visited many of the places that have become familiar to us since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Kramatorsk, Aviidvka, Sloviansk and Kharkiv – just some of the towns and cities that have been on the frontline of Putin’s expansionism for more than a decade.
Each of them are testament to the uncomfortable truth that the Budapest Memorandum turned out to be nothing more than a diplomatic fig leaf that let Russia brazenly seize Crimea and commence its war in Ukraine’s East. The Minsk agreements? A shattered failure that simply allowed Putin to buy time for his full-scale invasion. Any future agreement must be different, lest Ukraine will find itself the victim of another Russian invasion after Trump has left office. Ukrainians are clear: they won’t sign up to anything that doesn’t offer them proper protection.
President Zelensky will quite understandably approach any ceasefire talks with a degree of caution, but Europeans need to approach with a totally different mindset to the bystander mentality that infects so many capitals today. This time, Europe – not America – needs to be the lead guarantor of Ukraine’s security. While support from across the Atlantic will be necessary and vital, it’s time for Europe – the UK included – to take responsibility for its own backyard.
America’s patience with Europe’s somewhat loose attitude to security is growing thin. Indeed, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, one prominent German security figure, Wolfgang Ischinger, made the incredible suggestion that China could supply peacekeeping troops in Ukraine. The historian and occasional Spectator contributor, Niall Ferguson, shot down the idea with justified incredulity, telling the audience that such a suggestion would confirm all the worst things that our American counterparts already think about Europeans.
In Washington, isolationism is now the order of the day, as the populist political theory of ‘America First’ sees a President govern by caprice, starting trade wars with friend and foe alike. Europe cannot afford to outsource our security to the whims of voters in swing states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, or, indeed, to a President prone to such consequential mood swings. The old certainties are over, and Europe needs to be more assertive in taking responsibility and drawing our own red lines.
The UK and the EU have shared the burden of taking in Ukrainian refugees. Our economies have, by and large, absorbed the shocks of sanctions on Russia and huge energy disruption. The entire continent’s security is intertwined with Ukraine’s. Any meaningful solution in Ukraine requires not only the consent of Ukrainians, but a new level of courage from our politicians.
It starts by acting with urgency on two things: Ukraine’s membership in Nato and in the EU. No more vague promises, an end to talk of distant aspirations, but concrete pathways with clear timelines to be achieved in order to maintain Ukraine’s sovereignty. Anything less is an open invitation for Russia to come back for more.
Britain has shown what leadership looks like. The UK led the way in training Ukrainian forces, commencing Operation Orbital in 2015 and delivering game-changing training programmes in logistics, urban warfare, reconnaissance and much more, in order to help Ukraine’s armed forces get up to Nato standards. After 2022, Boris Johnson’s administration showed considerable urgency in getting Ukraine the weapons it needed, with former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace fighting mandarin scepticism and inertia. This is the psychology that needs to be adopted in more European capitals, but it’s also one that needs to be rediscovered in London under the new Starmer administration, which has shown less urgency than it should.
As we know from history, security guarantees are worthless if they lack teeth. Future guarantees must be comprehensive, with automatic trigger mechanisms for swift military and economic assistance should Russia breach any future ceasefire agreement during Ukraine’s path to Nato accession. No more diplomatic waffling. No more ‘serious concern’. No more hollow promises of a zeitenwende that never materialises. These should be serious multilateral treaties that are ratified by national parliaments and can withstand election cycles and domestic political shifts.
Inevitably, some will argue that Ukraine in Nato and the EU will be too much of a provocation for Putin. Ukrainians are tired of listening to this counsel of despair that will only leave them forever more vulnerable. Leaving Ukraine in a strategic grey-zone has proven to be a catastrophic failure of an experiment. It cannot go on. Some will claim it’s all too risky, too complicated and too expensive. Nonsense. What’s expensive is letting Russia believe it can redraw borders by force, showing weakness and a lack of strategic foresight.
The days of being able to over-rely on the transatlantic security umbrella were consigned to history on Trump’s re-election. The anxious zeitgeist of today is our wake-up call. Either we upgrade the European security architecture now – starting with Ukraine – and on our own terms, or we allow our hands to be forced by Moscow, Beijing or Tehran further down the line. That, I assure you, will be far more costly.
The window of opportunity won’t be open forever. Peace talks, whenever they come, will test western resolve. Repeating the past mistakes of Budapest and Minsk, and offering more vague assurances, will only leave Ukraine and all of Europe vulnerable. We need treaties with real bite, a proper pathway for Ukraine in Nato, and a psychological shift in European capitals when it comes to defence and security. History will judge us harshly if we get this wrong, and it will cost us more than just pounds, pence and euros if we do. Inaction will have a far greater cost for us all.
Comments