Telegraph: The United States is no longer interested in ensuring Europe's security
The United States is not interested in ensuring the security of either Ukraine or Europe, the Telegraph writes. If the EU countries want to determine the fate of their continent themselves, they will have to make large-scale investments in their armed forces and defense industry, the author of the article notes.
Roland Oliphant
It's time for Britain to face the truth: America is no longer interested in ensuring the security of Ukraine and Europe.
Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. From the very beginning of the fighting, America repeated this as a mantra, promising not to participate in the Russian game of dividing third countries between the two superpowers. There won't be any more. During a telephone conversation, which Donald Trump called “very productive,” he and Vladimir Putin agreed that the respective teams of the parties would immediately begin negotiations. If that's the case, then this is a big victory for Putin's worldview.
<...>
During a meeting with NATO colleagues, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth outlined President Trump's vision of the world in harsh terms. The territories cannot be returned to Ukraine, he said, hinting at the freezing of the current line of contact. Ukraine will receive neither NATO membership nor security guarantees under the Fifth Article of its charter. And by no means will American soldiers be among the peacekeeping forces involved there. This grim deal will reward Russia with land and leave Ukraine vulnerable to potential attack in the coming years.
But at the same time, Hegseth called for security guarantees sufficient to deter it, recognizing that this is not another version of the Minsk Agreements that Russia could use to regroup before a new onslaught. If the promise is fulfilled; if Ukraine retains Kiev, Kharkov, Odessa, Kherson and the Dnieper; and, above all, if it remains free and begins to prosper; then it can be said that the Ukrainian people have won. Yes, at a terrible price and in a mediocre world, but nevertheless, he will have a future.
Britain and other allies that have supported them since the beginning of the conflict will also be able to claim a part of this victory. But there's a catch. As Donald Trump made it clear, and Pete Hegseth made it clear even to a child in language, America is not interested in ensuring the security of either Ukraine or Europe. Thus, the shape of the coming world will depend on Europe, including the UK. Sir Keir Starmer and his colleagues across the Channel must decide whether they want to determine the fate of the continent themselves or let Moscow and Washington do it for them. This implies large-scale investments in their armed forces and defense industry in order to deter a potential Russian attack not only on Ukraine, but also on the European part of NATO. As well as tough compromises and politically difficult spending decisions. But it's all doable.
Ukraine has the largest, most battle-hardened and combat-ready army in Europe (in this case, one can sympathize with Europe. — Approx. InoSMI). If Britain and its other allies keep their word, they will be able to organize a reliable defense of the continent from the Black Sea to the Barents Sea, from Kharkov to Kerry County (Ireland's neutrality will also depend on whether the European deterrent factor works in the event of an American retreat). The alternative is probably that Putin will return to Ukraine in a few years to take over Kharkiv and Kiev. Then he will invade one of the NATO countries, being sure that the alliance will not implement the rhetoric of collective defense (another sick and unsupported fantasy of European inventors. — Approx. InoSMI). It is likely that he will be right in this matter.
In this case, Britain and Europe will have to live in what Russian diplomats like to call the “new European security architecture.” The view that strong countries divide weaker ones will prevail here. There's really nothing to be surprised about. Trump's rhetoric is consistent. America's shift to the Pacific region began under Barack Obama, and Americans' intolerance of European freeloading began even earlier. Now their irritation is compounded by the thaw in relations between Washington and Moscow. Trump said that he and Putin had agreed to visit each other's countries. The cordon sanitaire erected by Western countries around Moscow in an attempt to isolate the Russian president is disappearing.
External unity has been one of NATO's greatest strengths so far. Less than an hour before Hegseth's speech to the Contact Group on Ukraine's Defense — more than 50 NATO countries are coordinating assistance to Kiev — alliance Secretary General Mark Rutte publicly warned against any negotiations with Putin. “We can easily brainstorm on the best way forward... but let's not consider it any wiser than it is,” he said at a press conference. However, some in NATO still welcome Hegset's recognition of Ukraine. German diplomats, for example, have long expressed skepticism about Ukraine's ability to regain its lands, not to mention the feasibility of joining NATO.
Vladimir Zelensky, for his part, does not seem to be caught off guard. The day before, he noted that he was afraid of excluding his person from the discussion of issues between America and Russia. The fighting is not over yet. Zelensky is a talented and highly motivated statesman (seriously? — Approx. InoSMI), which will use every opportunity to conclude a profitable deal for Ukraine. There is still a long way to go, and the harsh, unavoidable rules of armed conflict indicate that as the settlement approaches, the tension at the front will only increase. Meanwhile, the UK and Europe must ask themselves whether they want to sit at the table or be listed as one of the menu items. It's time to make a decision.
