Is now really the time to make peace with Putin when he is in the ascendant and Western leaders are spluttering?
The Anchorage summit of Trump and Putin produced Trump’s tacit approval of Putin’s idea to keep those areas of the Ukrainian Donbas and Donetsk he now occupies and to be handed those parts he does not occupy. Putin keeps saying that the root causes must be expunged, by which he seems to mean Ukraine must be a neutered State, militarily castrated, and with no affiliation with NATO or help from Europe. That is, it should become his satellite. Trump meanwhile also encourages Europe to provide military help to Ukraine and the leaders of Europe stand in full support of Ukraine willing to provide security guarantees. Trump now says he will provide USA security assistance in some shape or form.
And so robust security guarantees are at the heart of any peace agreement from Ukraine’s point of view. A security guarantee is presumably a commitment which means those giving the guarantee will come to the defence of Ukraine and so deter further aggression by Putin. Before assessing what progress can be made it is essential to emphasise that nothing Putin says, or agrees to, can be relied on as he is a mendacious completely duplicitous person. Trump seems so far unwilling to acknowledge that, although European leaders do at least remind him.
SECURITY GUARANTEES
Putin indicates he may accept some security guarantees, but, if he did, that would almost certainly be evidence they are a totally inadequate deterrent. The Russian disrespect for the whole peace process and the idea of an independent strong Ukraine is illustrated by Putin’s version of acceptable security guarantees: his chief fixer, Lavrov, says that the only acceptable basis is one where Russia and/or China are equal guarantors so that any decision to resist Putin attacks must first require his approval. A European representative is said to have reacted “WTF” to this absurdity.
But is perhaps the very idea of security guarantees as currently discussed at all credible or is it fundamentally flawed? The fundamental idea seems to be to make Ukraine itself militarily powerful enough to deter another Putin invasion. The discussions seem to involve a few European nations, often referred to as the “Coalition of the Willing”, potentially agreeing to provide a small number of troops, “boots on the ground”, perhaps only to train Ukrainian fighters; and some fighter aircraft to keep the Ukrainian skies free of Russian planes and missiles, and the routes to commercial air traffic open; some naval back-up; and some USA support, not being troops, but probably aerial. No doubt there would be commitments to provide ordnance.
There is no contemplated NATO commitment in the security guarantees, but it is relevant to remember that the essence of NATO is that if any member is attacked, that is treated as an attack on all member nations which will respond appropriately. A potentially almighty divisive and deadly muddle seems to be built into the framework of any so-called peace agreement.
POTENTIAL DISASTER
Assume that a peace Agreement is reached with security guarantees. Assume also that Putin’s openly declared plans to in effect take over Ukraine remain. Then perhaps, having rearmed in say 2 years’ time, he launches a new invasion. Perhaps, spuriously, alleging breach by Ukraine. Imagine UK aircraft provided as part of the guarantees either stay on the ground or attack Putin’s aircraft. If they stay on the ground, they are useless. If they attack, Putin can declare this an act of war by the UK, not NATO. He then may bomb say sites in the UK. As NATO countries did not endorse the coalition of the willing and UK action was not NATO authorised, why would NATO come to the UK’s aid? Without that deterrent, Putin can take a lot of risk. Trump might decide he has no stomach for a fight just as he has to date, and he too has no qualms it seems withdrawing from prior agreements as he has done so often. NATO thus would be divided and so probably finished. Another Putin desire fulfilled. If European countries by this time have not totally bolstered their presently feeble forces, they will be powerless. The Peace Agreement would be shown to have been smoke and mirrors, useless.
If that may be possible, then any security guarantees entered into now must be fulsome and cast iron – but Putin will never accept that version. Current ideas apparently being floated and discussed by Western leaders seem woefully weak without the USA in the lead and determined to overcome the Devil.
Could it perhaps be that a deal with the Devil is not meaningful, unless he makes the deal under such duress and threat of his own destruction that he must accept tough terms himself? If so, the time to do a Peace Agreement with Putin is only once he has by force of arms and economics been made to realise he needs peace, which he currently does not. The USA must toughen up. That means Trump must overcome his cowardly tendencies as a bully who only beats up the weaker kids in the playground, and himself confront his puppet master, destroy him economically and lend military aid to Ukraine so that they defy Putin’s progress.
Perhaps the reality in any event is that Putin has no plans for any durable peace.
See also: –
Leave a Reply