The European Political Community junket over which Sir Keir Starmer presided at Blenheim Palace last week was described by him as being a “reset” of our relations with Europe. This concerned those of us who wish to respect the largest democratic vote in this country’s history to keep Britain out of the European Union, but that was not its main significance. One of the 45 European leaders present was Volodymyr Zelensky, the leader of Ukraine; and his presence was by far the most important. Tedious north London and university high table arguments about rejoining the EU are trivial compared with the existentialist question about Ukraine; and whether the free world is prepared to stop the tyrant Putin taking what he wants from a sovereign neighbour.
The EPC was founded in response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. On Friday, Mr Zelensky became the first foreign leader to address the Cabinet since Bill Clinton in 1997. Sir Keir is said to have promised Mr Zelensky that British support for Ukraine would be stepped up as part of Britain’s “unshakeable” support for that country. There is no reason to doubt his sincerity. Politically, he is on safe ground: most Britons feel disgust at Putin’s brutality, and share a sense that Ukraine has been bitterly wronged. Sounds from the rest of Europe have been generally less attractive, however, despite Poland’s having indicated that it would speed up delivery of F-16 jets to Ukraine; and these were tiptoed around at Blenheim.
Germany announced last week that it was halving its military aid to Ukraine. President Macron, one of Ukraine’s most fervent supporters, is struggling with the more proximate problem of governing a country that through his own recklessness and stupidity he has helped make nearly ungovernable. Elsewhere on the continent are those such as Viktor Orban from Hungary, who wish the whole thing would just go away: though for it to do so would require some major concession to be made to the Russians, rewarding their naked aggression and violating Ukraine’s intensely strong idea of itself as a nation distinct from its former imperial masters: which brings us to Donald Trump.
Even before a crank attempted to shoot him on 13 July, Mr Trump was set fair to become president of the United States for the second time. His exceptionally close escape, and the unbowed fashion in which he reacted to it, means his opponents will require a miracle to stop him returning to the White House in January. This has serious implications for the Russo-Ukraine war. Last week Mr Trump announced the Ohio senator JD Vance as his running mate. Mr Vance has said that “he doesn’t care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.” He has opposed further aid and his appointment will delight the Kremlin.
The view there is that when and if he becomes president Mr Trump will try to force territorial concessions out of Ukraine, thereby making all the slaughter and humiliation worth Russia’s while. With Russia’s assault so far having failed to conquer Ukraine, two-and-a-half years in, such an ‘initiative’ could come just as Kyiv might, at last, have the means to press home an advantage against an increasingly enfeebled and demoralised enemy.
At Blenheim, of all places, with its Churchillian resonances, one geopolitical point should have been paramount: that bullies control the playground unless there is a concerted effort to stand up to them. From 1941 Churchill and Roosevelt called such an effort against the Axis the “United Nations”, the name later being used to describe the hoped-for new world order’s debating chamber, where international disputes could be settled without war. Stalin’s determination to cling to notions of more barbaric conduct hamstrung that, and the UN was soon divided between the Soviet bloc (and its communist and anti-American allies) and what came to be called ‘the West’. The West was defined from 1949 with the foundation of Nato; and it is Nato today that, while not belligerent on behalf of Ukraine, is watching its struggle with Russia, its individual members doing what they can to support the side of right and freedom.
But if Mr Trump’s throwaway line about ending the war on his first day in office has any link with reality, what does it mean? It can only mean the territorial surrender for which the Kremlin hopes, as a means of Putin’s saving face. But will Ukraine stomach that? It doesn’t matter that the development of its 20th century borders, after Versailles and then Yalta, were in some respects an offence against history. Its present borders, part Habsburg, part Romanov, are those with which its people now identify. Ironically, they have been made so by Russia’s aggression. If a newly-enthroned President Trump expects Mr Zelensky to surrender part of his territory to the aggressor, Mr Zelensky is likely to do two things: to tell Mr Trump where he can put his grandstanding initiative, and to ask Europe – the very people Sir Keir gathered at Blenheim last week – to support him in doing so.
It is hard to see how the British government could do anything but agree with Mr Zelensky, if it is not to forfeit its credibility in international relations. For that reason David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, had better be on a plane to Washington as the polls close on 5 November to see whether he can talk the putative president-elect out of doing anything stupid. Since Mr Lammy has only just stopped trumpeting his love affair with the Obamas, and in 2018 called Mr Trump a “neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath”, he may have his work cut out. Other European powers, if they have any sense, will have to reject anything that, by rewarding Putin’s aggression, could encourage him to repeat it – say against the Baltic States, which are members of Nato.
What should have been discussed at Blenheim was whether Mr Trump understood that if he cuts Ukraine adrift, he is torpedoing the very concept of ‘the West’ that has existed since at least 1949, co-terminously with Nato. Perhaps he is such an isolationist that he doesn’t care. If that is so, the half-per cent increase the Government promises in our defence spending will not be nearly enough; the world will by a quantum have become far more dangerous.
Read More
