There’s no question that the Ukraine situation is a quagmire.
And the series of arrangements, miscalculations, provocations and maneuvers that have led to this impasse is ultimately a saga of manipulation and hypocrisy.
And that it’s not even clear what the ideal solution is at this stage.
Trump’s apparent solution of forcing the Ukrainians into a peace settlement that likely favours Russian demands (while the US fleeces Ukraine for its apparent mineral wealth) is one path.
Britain, Europe and an alliance ‘of the willing’ putting peacekeeping forces in Ukraine is another: perhaps in tandem with Trump’s vision.
Either way, a solution is needed that simultaneously allows Putin to save face and seem like he won, allows Europe to establish a deterrent to any further Russian expansionist activity, and avoids an outcome that looks like Ukraine had to make all the sacrifices and concessions.
An acceptance of a sovereign nation in Europe being invaded and then having to surrender on the invader’s terms is obviously very bad for Europe.
In reality though, it looks like Ukraine will be the overall loser – and that all sides (Russia, Europe, the US) will simply be looking for an outcome that makes them look like they didn’t lose or fail in their respective objectives.
The unfortunate truth is that Ukraine is, was and still will be little more than a pawn: both of Russia and of the West.
Like a child being fought over by two acrimoniously divorced parents.
In fact, that horrible display by Trump and J.D Vance with Zelenskyy in the White House last week was very much like abusive and domineering parents lecturing their misbehaving child.
In fact, it reminded me very much of a lecture I had to endure from my own Dad a few months ago – which was both uncomfortable and humiliating.
And one naturally sympathises with Zelenskyy, who looks increasingly like he’s realised how little independence and right to self-determination his country really has.
The fact that Putin and other Russian propagandists have repeatedly said that Ukraine isn’t a real country or a true people – or statements to that effect – illustrates why Ukrainians should view Russia with total mistrust.
It’s highly reminiscent of the Zionist mantra that Palestinians are ‘not a real people’.
Zelenskyy also looks like someone who might’ve awoken to the fact that he has been led by his foreign backers into a no-win scenario.
There’s very little argument that the West manipulated and weaponised Ukraine: using it as a tool to incite conflict with Russia.
Everything from the US involvement in the 2014 Maidan Revolution to the arming, funding and training of Ukrainian anti-Russian militias – including some unfortunately falling into the Neo Nazi category – was suggestive of a considered Western policy to encourage conflict.
As long ago as 2014, foreign ‘volunteers’, including from multiple European countries were travelling to Ukraine to be part of the low-level conflict. The Russians had complained about this at the time.
Though of course the Russians themselves later resorted to using foreign fighters in Ukraine too – so there’s plenty of hypocrisy to be found.
The West sponsoring all of this anti Russian activity on Russia’s own border was always destined to provoke an eventual response from Moscow.
Whether Russia’s invasion was a mistake or not is something that’s debated. As is the question of whether it was an act of Imperialist aggression or a strategic act of self defense.
I’ve always called it both a strategic mistake and a morally incorrect course.
But it could certainly be argued too that what Putin did in 2022 was arguably a preemptive action – to try to kill off a perceived threat before it could fully form.
But once Ukraine was invaded, the Ukrainian cause legitimately gained the moral high ground as the victim party whose sovereignty had been violated.
The West’s weaponisation and involvement in Ukraine also became more morally defensible at this point: because now a European country had been invaded and the perceived security of the continent was seen to be at risk.
Which raises the question of whether Putin had actually fallen into the West’s trap by bogging himself down in Ukraine – or whether it was in fact the West that fell into Putin’s trap by squandering money and resources into Ukraine’s defense and not anticipating the arrival of Trump 2.0 and the ‘re-alignment’.
Similarly, it is debatable whether Trump is offering Zelenskyy a lifeline, as he claims to be – or whether, in fact, it’s Putin being rescued by Trump from a three-year quagmire and miscalculation.
It’s arguably Putin who has been humiliated in Ukraine – with an operation that was supposed to be over in weeks instead dragging on for years and at great cost.
By the time Russia had resorted to employing North Korean cannon fodder and even suffering Ukrainian incursions across its own border, it was clear that Putin’s war had gone thoroughly off-script.
If Trump can coerce Zelenskyy into accepting a settlement that allows Russia to keep annexed territory, he’s doing Putin a big favour. Trump, arguably, has in fact come to Putin’s rescue.
Either way, where it appears to stand now is a mess.
Trump was probably right to tell Vlodimir Zelenskyy that he doesn’t have “the cards” to dictate his own country’s fate.
But a Ukrainian capitulation to Moscow is also an unacceptable outcome for Europe: setting a terrible precedent for European security.
The various former Soviet states also need security guarantees against Russia: so a coercing of Ukraine into submission to the new US-Russia détente is hugely problematic for the Western order.
Sticking with the theme of Ukraine being a pawn, the fate of Ukraine isn’t really even about Ukraine itself to most of those watching: it’s about various other countries in the region and about what precedent is going to be set here.
Zelenskyy is absolutely justified to demand security guarantees in any settlement. Other Baltic states are also wholly justified to seek the same.
But likewise, Russia is/was justified in demanding its own security guarantees from the West all those years ago – including the preservation of its ‘buffer zone’ and, crucially, the permanent neutrality of Ukraine.
An understanding that was repeatedly violated by the West – and which is arguably a root cause of this whole conflict, just as much as any Russian expansionist ambitions. Even Gorbachev himself warned about the danger.
The problem is arguably that Ukraine was never allowed to be ‘neutral’: Moscow always tried to maintain it as a vassal state without self-determination, while the West couldn’t resist coaxing it towards Europe.
Meanwhile, security guarantees promised to the Ukrainians by all parties after the collapse of the Soviet Union were not lived up to.
So the reality is that the Ukrainians have been failed by all sides.
And the various mistakes, miscalculations, provocations and machinations for decades shows that this situation was always untenable. And always likely to blow up.
Much like in the Middle East, I have always wondered if these situations are designed that way on purpose: intended to sit there and develop over time into inevitable conflicts. In which case, it’s possible all of this was seeded decades ago to bring us to this state of affairs now.
Either way, Ukraine looks destined to be the loser in this equation.
