British troops could be trapped by ‘peace' that only suits Putin

Telegraph

3 days ago

As European leaders fly over the Atlantic towards Washington, there will be a temptation to agree something that looks good for the 24-hour media cycle but will prove to be a disaster in the long run.
It was clear in Alaska last week that Donald Trump did not squeeze even the tiniest concession out of Vladimir Putin and so now, as I predicted for The Telegraph last week, he will seek to roll that failure over onto poor old Volodymyr Zelensky and try and force him to concede.
All the way through this sorry saga, we have seen Trump hardball Ukraine and soft-soap Russia. For months now, Maga's talking points have matched the Kremlin's, including numerous lies and inaccuracies.
The worst of these are that the US has supported Ukraine more than Europe – it hasn't; that Putin invaded because of Nato enlargement – he didn't; and that if Trump had been president in 2022, the invasion would never have happened.
The truth is Europe has spent and supplied more than the US. Most of the American money was spent in the US backfilling and replacing old equipment. In 2021, Putin's essay, On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, set out the real reasons he believes he has a right to own Ukraine. The 19-page essay mentions Nato in just one paragraph.
As for the claim that this would never have happened with Trump in office, in reality the Kremlin started planning this when he was in the White House the first time. They saw him pulling up the drawbridge internationally and gleaned from his deal with the Taliban that US resolve was weakening. How right they were.
We can see how the administration is planning to spin this. 'Security guarantees' are becoming the primary goal and agreeing upon a formula will no doubt be spun by all as a great success. But what is actually important is what they are trying to guarantee.
If they guarantee a front line that hands Putin strategic terrain and re-supply routes that he doesn't yet occupy, all we will be doing is securing the start point for another Russian invasion in years to come.
The international community could find itself guaranteeing Putin's success and policing Ukraine's defeat. Our Prime Minister will be tripping over himself to volunteer our hollow and overstretched Armed Forces to take the lead, but to date there is still no real funding available – John Healey seems allergic to demanding that No 10 puts its money where its mouth is.
Where does the Prime Minister think we can magic up ammo, forces and equipment?
In addition, Russia may have kept the best trap till last. If the West finds itself deploying tens of thousands of its Nato troops to secure Putin's front line, then Russia will be free to re-arm and threaten us elsewhere on our eastern borders. We will be stuck, and the Russian army will be free to roam.
That's why whatever border is settled, it must be one that causes a strategic dilemma for the Kremlin and not for us or Ukraine. Between 2014 and 2022, Russia and its separatist militias killed 18,000 Ukrainians on that frozen front line.
Before we agree anything, we should also be clear on the rules of engagement needed to enforce the peace. Many of us remember the humiliation of the UN and Nato by Bosnian Serbs who were experts at using unattributed forces (deliberately designed to be so) to murder and infiltrate settlements supposed to be under UN protection. Russia will do the same with its puppet units, such as the People's Militias of the Donetsk People's Republic.
So we find ourselves on the cusp of another 1938 Munich conference.
Will Trump play appeaser-in-chief? Will it be 'peace in our time' followed by a round of golf and dodgy business side deals with Putin's cronies? I very much hope not – because if it is then I believe today we will be laying the foundations for an even larger war within a decade.