As I contemplate the current state of the world, Russia relentlessly continues its barbaric bombardment of Ukraine, while, seemingly, the US Republicans play the fiddle as Ukraine burns. Reflecting on the past two years of this disastrous occupation of Ukraine, the initial unity and support pledged by the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the European Union seem to falter. Certain elements in the United States and Europe, Hungary notably, lean towards a path of apathy and appeasement, potentially jeopardising any efforts to curb Putin’s hunger for rebuilding the Russian Empire.
With each passing day, Russia grows more desperate, seeking weaponry from the hermit kingdom of North Korea. Rumours circulate that Mr. Putin plans to visit North Korea post what is sarcastically referred to as “free and fair elections” in Russia. However, the stark reality is that the special operation in Ukraine has utterly failed, leaving Russia increasingly isolated from the rest of the world. Britain, in response, pledges a substantial £2.5 billion to support the war effort, and the French contemplate the deployment of European troops in Ukraine. A move that I fear might escalate tensions to the point of an all-out war with the Russian state.
My primary concern revolves around the potential re-election of a certain Donald Trump. As an isolationist leader with little interest in the safety of Europe unless a considerable price is paid, Europe can no longer rely on the United States. This realisation marks a sombre day for both European and British politics. In response, the European Union introduces the European Defence Industrial Strategy, outlining the aim to purchase 40% of defence equipment from Europe by 2030. Additionally, half of their defence procurement budget is to be allocated to products made within Europe.
Caught between a rock and a hard place, Britain finds itself navigating a perilous world that echoes the times preceding World War II. Despite pouring a considerable amount of resources into a nuclear deterrent, which failed to launch twice – the second time occurring in front of the defence minister – close collaboration with European allies becomes increasingly crucial. In this challenging scenario, sympathy and assistance to our comrades in Ukraine are paramount. The potential fall of Ukraine would only serve to bolster Putin’s confidence, underscoring the inadequacy of current sanctions as the Russian economy continues to grow, fuelled in part by allies like India purchasing cheap oil from Russia.
Russia’s desperation becomes more apparent, as seen in their attempt to leak information against the German military. The leaked details insinuate the presence of British armed forces on the ground and suggest that the Kerch Bridge is a target. The bridge, a crucial link to mainland Russia and the illegally occupied territory of Crimea, becomes a focal point of Russia’s wild attempts to regain control. It’s akin to a defeated boxer, aware that a unanimous decision is imminent, throwing wild shots in an attempt for a knockout.
In the face of this desperate Russia, the world must remain vigilant. Standing shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian counterparts becomes not only an act of solidarity but a necessity to counter the unpredictable challenges posed by a nation cornered and willing to take drastic measures.
* Mo Waqas is Chair of the Lib Dem’s Stockton branch and was the PPC for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Dominika the roving Braybrooke skunk is found again - in Corby
Starmer kills off Leveson two
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
Bye bye coal: A Net Zero milestone
Helen Dudden
Roland
Suzanne Fletcher
Joseph Bourke
Steve Trevethan
18 Comments
I’m afraid this article misses an important point: while Russia was indeed at a point of desperation when it had been forced to retreat in both Kharkiv and Kherson, and was frantically building defensive lines to prevent total collapse, the situation has now passed through a period of stalemate and has reached a stage where the Russians are slowly grinding out advances across the entire front with a rumoured major offensive expected to begin shortly. If the hope behind Western support for Ukraine was to help to get them to the point where they would have the choice of being able to negotiate from a position of strength, that point has now passed without negotiations commencing. Ukraine has opted instead to risk the possibility of suffering a military defeat in the hope of achieving a military victory. That choice was theirs – but it does not mean that NATO should be willing to go to war on Ukraine’s behalf if it begins to be clear that Ukraine’s gamble is not working out as they hoped.
The Estonian plan to support Ukraine seems to be the most forward thinking and solid. The plan envisions all members of the Ramstein Contact Group (54 nations) committing 0.25% of GDP to military aid to Ukraine for an initial 4 years. This is less of a commitment than the EU COVID Recovery funds.
I believe our party should call for the UK Government to back this plan.
A big wake-up call for Europe. At least two points have become clear. 1. Russia is as aggressive and imperialist as ever. 2. The US is an unreliable defense partner. The financing for the military aid to Ukraine shows little sign of getting through Congress and, if Trump wins the presidential elections, may never arrive. Democracy in Europe may have to be paid for and fought for by Europe itself. The Czech initiative to buy 800 000 artillery shells for Ukraine may have bought some time but this war still has a long way to go.
Mary, you are overlooking the most important point from the Ukrainian point of view: Russia is occupying a significant area of their country and has declared the annexation of even more
Do you believe the West should supporting Ukraine because the Russians have the upper hand?
Do you understand that Ukrainians do not think it’s positive to reward Russian aggression with parts of their country?
Would Mary have advised us to accept German terms after Dunkirk one wonders…
@Mark Platt Chris Moore. NATO membership of Ukraine would be a proactive and aggressive act to any Russian president, It should of never been entertained.
The geography and history needs to be taken into account with a huge dose of realpolitik.
This isn’t 1939 , British territory is not under threat , and we have no commitment to Ukraine whatsoever.
At some point Ukraine will need to negotiate an end to this conflict . With Russia continuing to do business with a significant part of the world , its economy hasn’t collapsed, & it’s huge armament industry continues to expand , just what do you envisage to be a military success for Ukraine for this conflict to end ?
.
@Chris Moore, Mark Platt
Let me be as clear as I can be – Ukraine is allowed to risk losing even more of their land by fighting on rather than negotiating if that is what they want to do. However, my advice to Ukraine would be to accept the loss of 20% of its territory if it allows the remaining 80% to join NATO, rather than to end up losing more or even all of its country.
Thelma:
1.Ukraine is not a member of Nato.
2. Ukraine is a sovereign country. And decides its own foreign policy.
3. Why are you so keen on rewarding Russian aggression?
@Chris. I didn’t say it was a member. I said NATO membership of Ukraine would be an aggressive & provocative act. No Russian president could accept that given the history & Geography. Anyway Ukraine’s borders are of no consequence to us . If the EU & US want to spend billions only for it to end up as burnt out hulks in Eastern Ukraine so be it.
Thelma:
You write: “Ukraine’s borders are of no consequence to us.” Do you really not know that the principle that frontiers cannot be changed by force is one of the main pillars of international peace and stability? If it collapses, if Putin get away with it, he will try again, and others will try to do similar things elsewhere. More countries will acquire nuclear weapons, to ensure the success of their aggressive plans, deter states that might intervene against them, or to defend themselves against aggression by threatening neighbours. Sooner or later those nuclear weapons will begin to be used. Sooner or later, collapse of the principle that frontiers cannot be changed by force means nuclear holocaust.
@Martin Styan
I think NATO has already established the principle that borders can be changed by force by bombing Serbia until it agreed to withdraw from sovereign Serbian territory which individual NATO members then recognised as the independent country of Kosovo.
@Martin. I cannot see that apocalyptic vision you describe. Ukrainian NATO membership would be an aggressive & provocative act, & any Russian president would find that membership as a real and serious threat. With It’s Geography & history you need some realpolitik. As regards the principle of frontiers, what gives the US the right to place an army base in Northern Syria. Syrian & Lebanon’s airspace is routinely violated by the US & Israel . I’m sure they would say it’s protecting their interests from a very real threat.
We rightly call for a ceasefire in Gaza , what about one in Eastern Ukraine ? How is this conflict going to end ..
The spring offensive is fast approaching a year. The call for long range artillery, then tanks , now F16s . The Ukrainian army going through a generation of young men, just to hold a position it’s held for a year now .
To Mary Fulton
You seem to have forgotten that in July 1995, the Serbs systematically murdered more than 8000 Bosnian Moslems at Srebrenica while the “international community” watched. When more fighting broke out in Kosovo, the West decided that the Serbs had to be prevented from continuing to do similar things. The West was not trying to take territory for itself, just to stop the fighting. It is a very good thing that former Yugoslavia was more or less sorted out before Putin came to power. Otherwise, Russian backing for the Serbs might have produced a situation similar to the one we have seen in Syria in recent years.
To Thelma Davies
The idea that NATO expansion is some sort of Western aggression against Russia is just Putin propaganda. NATO expanded because the former satellites of the Soviet Union wanted to join for their own defence. Putin has shown how right they were. Nobody in the West wants to invade Russia. Everybody knows what happened in the Second World War. If there is an external threat to Russia, it comes from China not the West. Russia grabbed the Vladivostok region from the Chinese Empire at the same time as Britain grabbed Hong Kong. I am sure the Chinese have not forgotten. However, they probably want to solve Taiwan first. Unfortunately, Putin seems to be so fixated with the history of Russia’s relations and wars with Western powers that he does not see the threat from the East.
@Martin Styan
The unacceptable deeds of Serbian forces in 1995 in Bosnia could have be used to justify military intervention in Serbia to secure regime change and war crimes trials for the political leaders responsible when it appeared similar things were happening in Kosovo in 1999. What it didn’t do (in my opinion) was provide a justification for changing international borders by force. If you, or others, think it did provide a justification for changing international borders by force, we do not have an international rule that borders can not be changed by force – we have a rule that sometimes, in some circumstances, borders can be changed force. That is a huge change.
> Martin Styan
You seem to have forgotten that in July 1995, the Serbs systematically murdered more than 8000 Bosnian Moslems at Srebrenica while the “international community” watched.
> Mary Fulton
The unacceptable deeds of Serbian forces in 1995 in Bosnia could have be used to justify military intervention in Serbia to secure regime change and war crimes trials for the political leaders
30,000 deaths in Gaza and increasing daily due to the unacceptable actions of Israel, yet the international community sits on the side lines and wrings their hands; how times change…
@Roland – Israel has repeatedly offered the (Hamas) Palestinians a ceasefire – subject to the release of the hostages – including even before they sent troops into Gaza. Apart from during a small window in November when they did release hostages and there was a ceasefire, the Palestinian side has repeatedly refused the offers of ceasefires. As such the war continues and casualties will mount – just as they do in every war. For the record, the casualties in other wars were far higher.
It is clear double standards for our politicians to criticise the casualties in the current conflict when the casualties in the two post 9/11 wars were – according to the Washington Post – amount to 4.5 million (both direct and indirect due to damage to water treatment systems etc) and with over 46 million refugees created.
@Paul R
Are you implying that in any conflict if you believe ‘your side is right’ any number of civilian casualties is reasonable – or acceptable?