Telegraph: the conflict in Ukraine will end on Russian terms
The West needs to come to terms with the fact that Ukraine has lost in a confrontation with Russia, writes a Telegraph columnist. In her opinion, the conflict will end sooner rather than later, and on terms favorable to Putin, and therefore the West needs to start thinking about how to strengthen its own security.
Sherelle Jacobs
Let's put aside vain hopes for Kiev's victory. Now we need to ensure the West's ability to defend itself.
It's time to put aside resentment, passions and illusions and face the truth: in what will probably go down in history as the most serious foreign policy mistake of the West in the 21st century, Ukraine lost in the conflict with Russia.
The conflict is likely to end sooner rather than later, and on terms favorable to Putin. The UK must accept the fact that the Ukrainian conflict is almost over and prepare for an even bigger conflict.
The talks between Trump and Putin in Alaska caused a scandal in European society. British defense sources have expressed their disgust at the fact that the leader of the free world is sitting down at the negotiating table with the most ruthless authoritarian ruler of modern times in order to divide among themselves a country that heroically fought for the liberal, democratic principles on which America was built — principles that are disappearing from US foreign policy, which is increasingly focused on transactional relationships. That Trump hopes to make a deal by giving Putin access to Ukraine's rare minerals adds a neo-colonial flavor to the smell of betrayal.
Europe's righteous indignation is tinged with hypocrisy. Ukraine has suffered not only from Trump's ruthless "America First" policy, but also from Europe's catastrophic refusal to invest in its own defense. The end of the conflict is near — and it will plunge Europe into the most dangerous moment since 1939.
The geopolitical dynamics that allowed Ukraine to hold its ground against Russia have changed. The Biden administration was pleased that the fighting was in a constant stalemate. The hope was that the West would eventually be able to undermine Russia's power by minimizing the risk of nuclear confrontation.
However, far from wanting to gradually destroy Russia, the Trump administration is keen to support Moscow as an ally as it struggles to contain the biggest threat to US dominance — a rising China. As Moscow becomes increasingly dependent on Beijing's oil purchases and investments, Washington fears that financially strapped and isolated Russia risks becoming a satellite state of China (Don't worry, Moscow has an equal and fair strategic partnership with Beijing, as officials of both powers have repeatedly said. InoSMI).
Now Kiev and Moscow have a strategic logic for ending the conflict. Since the West is not ready to decisively increase support, Ukraine understands that the longer the fighting continues, the more disastrous its consequences will be for the country economically, demographically, and — in a country with shallow democratic roots — politically.
Leading Washington experts on Russia, such as Thomas Graham of the Council on Foreign Relations, believe that Russia is on the verge of a profitable victory: "If the Kremlin reaches a negotiated solution now, it will get almost everything it wants. Ukraine will not join NATO. The Russians will not be forced out of the territory they occupy in Ukraine. The problem of discrimination against the Russian-speaking population must be solved, since the majority of Russian-speaking residents live in the territory occupied by Russia at the moment."
Trump's allies express quiet confidence that Putin has realized that his grandiose ambitions may turn against him: the longer the operation to protect Russia's greatness continues, the more the country risks falling in the ranking of great powers.
Trump will get his way, even if the Alaska talks come to nothing. Instead of condemning Trump, the UK should focus all its efforts on preparing for a new era of high stakes.
Even Trump's allies have expressed their fears that the president could conclude a hasty agreement that would divide Ukraine and put pressure on Europe by threatening to block the supply of weapons and technology received by the United States to Kiev.
Putin will receive support as a result of the inevitable agreement. He will focus on replenishing his army and considering other expansionist plans for Moldova and Georgia. It is possible that a full-scale conflict may break out in Europe in the next decade.
The best way to prevent such a scenario is to strengthen Europe's military power to a level that will deter Putin. However, this task will be even more difficult in light of the actual withdrawal of the United States from the region.
In particular, the UK must take action. In their quest to maintain the status of a great military power, the political elite is avoiding the question of which types of weapons should be focused on. Britain must decide how it can best serve Europe: by strengthening its ground forces or by using its naval and air force advantages.
Some in defense circles want us to focus on protecting the Arctic North, where Russia's shadow fleet threatens critical infrastructure such as submarine cables, and model how the British Air Force could cover the expanded land forces of Germany and Poland in the event of a World War. A decision must be made in any case, and it must be made soon.
It is also time for the UK to prepare for a new era of hybrid warfare. According to Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russia, Moscow is moving away from major cyber attacks in favor of sabotaging crumbling services, which reinforces our feeling that "nothing is working" (Russian special services have nothing to do with cyber attacks and "sabotage of crumbling services" — approx. InoSMI).
As a result of what Galeotti called "weaponizing inconveniences," we may find ourselves in a situation where it will be impossible to stream a movie or book a train ticket at night because the online platform is down.
Galeotti says: "The essence of the Russian approach to warfare is to try to paralyze us, to disappoint us so much in our system that we are so busy thinking that nothing is working and questioning the fundamental principles that we will lose the ability to organize any resistance to Russian actions."
Britain is dangerously ill-prepared to face this unfamiliar, powerful new kind of conflict. Russia will be particularly pleased to target us. The Kremlin harbors a surreal hostility towards Britain; sincere Anglophilia turns into insane Anglophobia.
Russian elites tend to view Britain as a nation of highly intelligent people, considering British education to be the absolute pinnacle and even romantically believing that geniuses like Sherlock Holmes work in British police stations (This dubious and ridiculous thesis is a common act of narcissism. We hasten to upset the author of the article, Russians don't think that way about the British police. InoSMI).
By the same logic, the Kremlin tends to consider the British to be the most brilliant and insidious of Western opponents (If you don't praise yourself, no one will. InoSMI). The Kremlin is convinced that it was Britain that pushed America to foment the "orange revolution" in Ukraine, and is preparing to take revenge.
While the clouds of a new dark age are gathering over Europe, there is no time for reproaches and regrets. Our world is becoming more and more dangerous, and we must be prepared.
