Four years of war has forged Ukraine into a lynchpin for European security

my Today marks the fourth anniversary of the second phase of Russia’s war on Ukraine. Phase one started in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and parts of the Donbas – Putin’s response to ordinary Ukrainians’ refusal to disavow their European future. Now is a good time to remember why we are supporting Ukraine; not just because it is right but because we must if the liberal order and the rule of law on which it is based is to survive.

It is also time to recognise Ukraine as central for Europe’s security and prosperity in an increasingly unstable world. We need Ukraine as much as Ukraine needs us and until Ukraine is lifted out of the grey security zone to which previous failed peace agreements have consigned it, there will be a persistent threat to European security.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia could have chosen cooperation with Europe but settled on the path of confrontation, sowing instability in its “near abroad” to maintain control over its neighbours. As at home, so abroad. Putin propped up Syria’s murderous regime to the very last while his Africa Corps supports autocrats and military juntas in exchange for resource concessions and ousting Western partnerships in Africa.

Chaos is not a glitch but a defining feature of Russia’s foreign policy. We feel its effects increasingly in Europe where Russia’s long-running campaign to disrupt, sabotage and sow unrest has intensified since 2022. The immediate purpose is to weaken our resolve to support Ukraine, but the underlying goal is the demise of the global liberal order.

Russian meddling may have affected the outcome of US elections as well as the the fine-edge Brexit vote which materially damaged the security and economy of the UK and the unity of Europe. Neither theory can be proven, but plausible deniability, like chaos, is a feature of Russian foreign policy.

Trump has rightly forced Europe to take responsibility for its own security. But now the US is not only jeopardising its mutually beneficial security partnership with Europe, but actively working against Europe’s own security interests which now revolve critically around Ukraine. Ukraine’s stubborn determination since 1991 to adhere, however imperfectly, to its democratic values has thwarted Putin’s imperialistic dream. Should he succeed, this would constitute a direct threat to Europe. Meanwhile, the US is hampering the flow of arms purchased for Ukraine and bullying Ukraine into territorial concessions which favour Russia. Ed Davey has rightly said that forcing Ukraine to give up vital defensive territory is a price we cannot allow Ukraine to pay. Czechoslovakia in 1938 looms large before us as a warning.

In an increasingly lawless and competitive world both China and the US use economic measures to blackmail other states in pursuit of their goals. Ukraine as an EU partner is an attractive proposition in this regard. With its enormous agricultural sector and its reserves of rare earths and other vital resources and its mastery of IT and innovation, Ukraine would bolster European resilience and help modernise our economy.

Unmanned weapons have revolutionised warfare in a way most of us struggle to comprehend and we are far from ready for it. Ukraine is already helping us adapt to this new reality but much more is possible. Ukraine is rapidly rebuilding its formerly strong military-industrial complex which is already producing weapons for Europe. Ukraine’s membership would give a much-needed boost to NATO, but the US is pressing Ukraine to give up its NATO aspirations as part of its “peace” proposals.

We cannot know how and when this war will end, but we must be ready for at least two more years of war or another pretend peace agreement – the third in 12 in years – that will only pave the way for another wave of Russian aggression. We must strive to avoid this. Ukraine will fight on because it must and we in Europe must continue and intensify our support. If changing borders by force becomes acceptable, the outlook for global security is bleak. EU membership would lift Ukraine out of the grey zone and bolster our security. Alas, the UK no longer has a say in this, but we do have real power to push for Ukraine to be embedded as full and equal partners in Europe’s security architecture. As Polish PM, Donald Tusk, recently said, Ukraine does not have to be grateful; we should be grateful to Ukraine. It’s time to show it.

* Rosemary Thomas, OBE is a former diplomat specialising in Eastern Europe and is Chair of Liberal Democrat Friends of Ukraine (to join contact: [email protected]).

Read more by .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

7 Comments

  • Joan Summers 24th Feb '26 - 9:36am

    “..or another pretend peace agreement..”
    Yes, I believe it was Angela Merkel who stated that the Minsk peace agreements were only signed as a way of buying time for Ukraine to strengthen its military in readiness for war with Russia. What we need is a peace agreement where all sides are fully committed to making it work – sadly, I can’t think of any way in which a peace proposal could win the backing of both sides to this conflict.

  • Rosemary Thomas 24th Feb '26 - 10:09am

    Thank you Joan. Yes Merkel says that but Germany did very little to help Ukraine strengthen that readiness and arguably her continuing to champion Shcroeder’s pet and lucrative cooperation with Russia on Nord Stream arguably took away Ukraine’s biggest lever over Russia – the pipelines transiting its territory. I would argue that Ukraine has tried to be as flexible as it can but what it simply cannot do is give up the fortress belt (that’s what giving up Donetsk and Luhansk would do) that is its most important asset fro keeping Russia out of Kyiv. Putin has no interest at all in ending this war for anything other than Ukraine’s subjugation so we need to help Ukraine out-perform Russia and mount the economic pressure on Russia – this will take long, hard work alas and all the more so because Trump is essentially on Russia’s side.

  • Nick Hopkinson 24th Feb '26 - 12:01pm

    Thank you, Rosemary. You are absolutely right to highlight that we owe a lot to Ukraine and that the
    UK and the EU must increase our support to it. In our case, much closer relations with the EU could help finance more humanitarian and military support for Ukraine.

  • Joan Summers 24th Feb '26 - 10:03pm

    A second point if I may:

    “Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia could have chosen cooperation with Europe but settled on the path of confrontation…”

    Actually, former NATO General Secretary George Robertson stated that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Putin had indicated that he wanted Russia to join NATO. However, instead of welcoming the approach with open arms, Putin was told that Russia would have to apply like every other country that wanted to join and join the queue.

    Perhaps, if NATO had grasped the opportunity then, NATO would today stretch from the Pacific to the Pacific, and Ukraine would not be being ravaged by war.

  • Peter Davies 25th Feb '26 - 7:58am

    “after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Putin had indicated that he wanted Russia to join NATO” The USSR collapsed in 1991 and Putin didn’t rise to power until 2000. It is the period in between where we could perhaps have done more to help Russia integrate more with the West. That would have been political and economic integration first. Giving Russia access to American weapons through Nato membership would have been the end point.

  • Joan Summers 25th Feb '26 - 6:29pm

    @Peter Davies
    I agree that The West could have done more between 1991 and 2000, but my point still stands that – unlike any leader before him – Putin indicated a wish for Russia to join NATO. I do think we should have offered the hand of friendship at that stage.

  • Rosemary Thomas 1st Mar '26 - 3:49pm

    Thanks Joan – I worked on the Russian desk in the late 90s and early 2000s and I think, to give Blair credit, we bent over backwards to embed Russia as much as possible in the West including by bending the rules through making the the G7 into the G8. A lot of time and effort was invested in Russia. For me personally, and funnily enough, it seemed to be the same moment for Margaret Thatcher it was the way Russia about the Kursk submarine which made me realise that Putin would never be the one to make Russia “normal.”

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Nonconformistradical
    I second Henry's comments about Barrow - this south-eastener has at least, albeit not recently, set foot in the Barrow constituency (visiting friends who lived ...
  • Henry
    I do get very annoyed by the comments on these by-election posts. The over-exaggeration of our comeback because we won last week and then complain when we finis...
  • Daniel Walker
    @David Raw I am afraid I don't know that; however I am always wary of arguments that say we should have the cheapest possible democracy. (Which isn't to say ...
  • Daniel Walker
    @Kira I was at the debate where that policy was decided. There were two other options: one was the regions of England having the same powers as Scotland and ...
  • David Raw
    @ Daniel Walker Has the party costed the amount for changing to the arrangement you describe, Daniel, and what amount does it come to ? For my part I wo...