|
Starmer’s Summit Gives Birth To A Mouse – It’s Stillborn.
A mountain was in labour, uttering immense groans,
and on earth there was very great expectation.
But it gave birth to a mouse. This has been written for you,
who, though you threaten great things, accomplish nothing."
Sundays meeting of selected European leaders in London reminded me of the above Aesop fable.
Prime Minister Starmer's summit, called for in haste, has achieved nothing:
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer rallied his European counterparts Sunday to shore up their borders and throw their full weight behind Ukraine as he announced outlines of a plan to end Russia’s war.
…
Starmer said he had worked with France and Ukraine on a plan to end the war and that the group of leaders — mostly from Europe — had agreed on four things.
The steps toward peace would:
- keep aid flowing to Kyiv and maintain economic pressure on Russia to strengthen Ukraine’s hand;
- make sure Ukraine is at the bargaining table and any peace deal must ensure its sovereignty and security; and
- continue to arm Ukraine to deter future invasion.
- Finally, Starmer said they would develop a “coalition of the willing” to defend Ukraine and guarantee the peace.
“Not every nation will feel able to contribute but that can’t mean that we sit back,” he said. “Instead, those willing will intensify planning now with real urgency. The U.K. is prepared to back this with boots on the ground and planes in the air, together with others.”
It is far from certain whether Russian President Vladimir Putin will accept any such plan, which Starmer said would require strong U.S. backing. He did not specify what that meant, though he told the BBC before the summit that there were “intense discussions” to get a security guarantee from the U.S.
“If there is to be a deal, if there is to be a stopping of the fighting, then that agreement has to be defended, because the worst of all outcomes is that there is a temporary pause and then Putin comes again,” Starmer said.
Starmer said he will later bring a more formal plan to the U.S. and work with Trump.
That mouse the mountain gave birth to is stillborn:
– Trump has made clear that the U.S. will not agree to back any European forces in Ukraine.
– Zelenski, unless under more pressure, will not agree to a ceasefire without U.S. backing.
– Russia does not agree to any temporary ceasefire. It wants a new permanent security architecture for Europe and beyond.
– Russia does not agree to forces from NATO countries in Ukraine. It started the war to prevent that to happen.
– Russia will not agree to a rearming of Ukraine. Its declared aim is to 'de-militarize' the country.
– Russia is winning the war. Neither Starmer nor Europe have the means to prevent it from doing that.
What Starmer and Macron are trying to do now is the very same they had failed to do last week when the both made the pilgrimage to Washington DC:
Macron, Meloni and Starmer were among European leaders who spoke with both Trump and Zelenskiy over the weekend, as they tried to get the two men back to the table. They believe there’s still a narrow path to reviving the minerals deal that the presidents had planned to sign, giving the US leader a vested interest in deterring further Russian aggression against Ukraine.
They still want to win Trump's agreement to prolong the war. I doubt that this second attempt will be more successful than their first try.
One wonders how Starmer and Macron became delusional enough would even try that plot. One reason may be that get advised my 'military experts' like these:
Despite President Volodymyr Zelensky’s efforts, the United States has made it clear that it does not intend to offer Ukraine security guarantees or directly contribute to any forces supporting Ukraine after the imposition of a ceasefire. It therefore falls upon Europe to plan for such a force. This is a serious undertaking. Can European powers field such a force without hollowing out Europe’s ability to defend NATO’s borders, all while the United States potentially withdraws forces from the continent?
While the length of front and the size of Russian ground forces may give the impression that the task is infeasible, in our view it is practicable if European nations are willing to pay the cost. With the right force balance, investment, and political framework Europe could generate a credible commitment.
There is nothing fantastical about a European mission in Ukraine.
Watling and Kofman, the authors of the above, call for the deployment of three(!) European brigades to Ukraine:
Given the significant degradation in Russian force quality over the course of the last three years of fighting, the initial force deployed could be as few as three combat brigades, or their equivalents.
Since the start of the war the Russian forces in Ukraine have more than doubled in size. Russia is now producing more missiles and drones than ever before. Its soldiers have gained valuable experience. How can this be seen as a 'degradation in Russian force quality'?
Ukraine itself has deployed some 100 brigades in the war and Russia about twice that many.
How three inexperienced multinational brigades from western Europe could in any way effect that balance is way beyond me.
Is there any way to direct these people to a more realistic and sane view of the world?
In the interest of keeping track of the facts, and trying to apportion the blame in the Ukraine debacle, we re-posting an article from2019 by the Italian journalist Murizio Blonded dealing with the events of 2014.
Well before 2014, the Russian side obviously made huge miscalculations when Lenin and later Khrushchev, for misplaced political calculations, assigned the Donbas and Crimea to the Ukraine gubernatorial province – not thinking of the possible consequences down the road. But the Russians seem to have swallowed their pride and accepted the loss, which was somewhat attenuated by certain leasing arrangements with Ukraine.
But here comes the United States who, in its hubris, thought they could corner a wounded animal and actually take possession of the historically Russian outposts in Crimea. The coup in Kiev in 2014 was prepared in order to enable the US 7th Fleet, in the Mediterranean, to rapidly cross the seas and install itself in Russia’s critical military defense fortifications of Crimea. – An outright act of war, to which Putin’s team responded magisterially, thus avoiding a nuclear war.
It was the United States who, not satisfied with the attempted barbarian attack, continued to supply the helpless Ukrainians with arms, munitions, intelligence, training, money, and political cover to continue their assaults on Russian-ethnic areas. Thus, it is 100% the United States who is the criminal party here.
Unfortunately, after some initial successes by the Ukrainians, in the end this resulted in a total loss for the naïve Ukrainians: loss of territory, loss of its best men, economic destruction, and almost the loss of statehood. And now, the same United States, just like in Vietnam and Afghanistan, got tired of accepting their own losses and the Ukrainian disaster, and in utterly hypocritical… (more than hypocritical) is now calling on Ukraine to just accept this historical disaster and feed their still-warm corpses to the wolves.
What makes this even more of a nightmare is that what used to be a defeated Russia on the shores of the Black Sea, prior to 2014, these events have empowered Russia to go further and eye territories beyond their wildest dreams – to take over Odessa, Transdnistria, Moldova, etc. Remember Lavrov’s sinister words about their claim to Moldova – part of the Romanian national body since time immemorial, speaking 100% the Romanian language, who want to re-align with its Mother nation. The same holds for Georgia, Armenia, and the Baltic states: small but historically independent principalities/nations who do not want to be part of the Imperial Russia. And who is going to defend them all? The bankrupt Trumptards? – No. Of course not.
This is not about peace. This is about the U.S. owing many apologies and huge reparations, to the poor and deceived Ukrainians rather than stealing the last resources of a nation they led into near-fatal error.
https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2025/03/03/republished-us-planned-to-gain-control-over-crimea-to-clean-out-the-russian-black-sea-fleet
Posted by: LongTimeObserver | Mar 3 2025 17:45 utc | 15
– Trump has made clear that the U.S. will not agree to back any European forces in Ukraine.
– Zelenski, unless under more pressure, will not agree to a ceasefire without U.S. backing.
– Russia does not agree to any temporary ceasefire. It wants a new permanent security architecture for Europe and beyond.
– Russia does not agree to forces from NATO countries in Ukraine. It started the war to prevent that to happen.
– Russia will not agree to a rearming of Ukraine. Its declared aim is to ‘de-militarize’ the country.
– Russia is winning the war. Neither Starmer nor Europe have the means to prevent it from doing that.
The logic of our host’s post is as valid as these premises are in fact.
As to the first, strictly speaking, Trump is making it clear that he expects Europe to pay for troops. I am not so sure that means Trump intends to stop the decades long intelligence support (including his first presidency.) It is not clear that the president who boasted of assassinating Soleimani (and supposedly wanted to bomb Iran at one point) is truly committed to not risking major land wars. He’s remarked on the peril of WWIII (meaning a nuclear exchange,) but Trump is unpredictable. In short, probable I think but not certain.
As to the second, as useful as the puppet image is in assessing so much of the behavior of client regimes is, it is still true that people like Zelensky are not literally puppets. Puppets can easily be forced to act out killing themselves. Real people, not so much. Further, the really serious pressure on Zelensky is still via the US role in providing intelligence. Speculations about Trump really wanting to get out of Ukraine is so far just that. In short possible but is it really probable that anyone wants to destabilize Ukraine for Zaluzhniy or Poroshenko or worse?
As to the third, a world security agreement is very high bar indeed. It is unclear why Putin wouldn’t/shouldn’t prioritize a Ukrainian settlement first. But for the US to wait on a global settlement satisfactory to itself, leaving Ukraine as a postscript or addendum to a giant understanding means continuing the war until…the First of Octember? In short, not as probable, not for peace soon.
As to the fourth, I can’t read Putin’s mind, nor is it clear how relevant, or who is relevant, other leaders in Russia are. In short, probable, but not certain.
As to the fifth, the implicit premise here is that the US and its NATO junior partner, can accept defeat of the war on Russia. I lack to the telepathic powers to pronounce on the probability or improbability of this premise.
As to the sixth, currently the balance of forces are against a quick end to the war. Our host tells us that Ukraine has about a hundred brigades, Russia about twice that. This is not enough, so far as I can tell. An attrition strategy aimed solely at personnel is neither quick nor cost-free nor is there any way at all to predict a collapse. I’m not even sure such a strategy can even work. In short, improbable that this will soon terminate the war, however much one may hope.
Our host cites this.
Can European powers field such a force without hollowing out Europe’s ability to defend NATO’s borders, all while the United States potentially withdraws forces from the continent?
The thing is, there is no significant threat against NATO’s borders. The answer therefore is yes. That is why the conclusion that it wouldn’t necessarily be beyond so-called NATO. And that’s true even if the proposed numbers are absurd. (I read this as BS designed to sell the policy, with the intention of putting in larger numbers.)
There is of course the issue of victory (by either party) getting out of hand, escalating into nuclear exchanges. I suspect the only US guarantee NATO really wants is a nuclear guarantee. As to that, Trump advocates increased nuclear arms, exempting as I recall nuclear armaments from Hegseth’s demand for 8% smaller military spending increases/de facto cuts. Also, Trump has consistently rejected nuclear arms agreements and intensified military threats such as abrogating INF.
The war on Russia is neither realistic nor sane, and never has been. Asking when realism and sanity will set in is satisfying rhetoric. But I’m not sure it’s very useful analysis.
Posted by: steven t johnson | Mar 3 2025 17:51 utc | 21
|
