There is no way the West could trust Russia to keep any agreement. This is not Korea 1953 when both sides are exhausted and totally unable to defeat the other side. Russia has persuaded itself that Ukraine, colonised in the 17th century, is part of Russia, and will exhaust its armed forces to recover that position it lost when the USSR collapsed. Far better for the West to continue to aid Ukraine where it can until Trump is gone in 2029.
As ever a concise and sound assessment of the situation. Germany, France and the UK would all have challenges in making a credible contribution to a European multinational force to provide some type of committment to Ukraine. Currently the UK Govt promises to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence but currently there is no target year to meet this target or a willingness to accept that it may need to go to 3% or more of GDP. Our allies and adversaries will have noticed a British "senior government source" who briefed the Times that hitting the 2.5% of GDP target by 2030 "will mean deeper cuts to public services in the run-up to the election. It feels like a non-starter.” Under previous Labour leaders this type of off-the-record briefing would have lead to the "source" involved either being sacked or at least severely reprimanded (and of course this may have already happened). It would be very difficult for the UK military to deploy and properly support an enduring Brigade level presence to Urkraine without a very rapid move to 2.5% of GDP defence spending, and many would argue it needs 3% or more of GDP. Ukrainian and NATO military leaders are aware of this, and it is not hard to find the evidence in various Parliamentary Committee and NAO reports. No matter what the PM says to our European or US allies they will not think we are serious unless we can prove we are willing to put our money where our mouth is.
I think what this depressing but realistic analysis adds up to is that if Ukraine is fortunate, the present situation of it fighting the war with military material support from the West will continue until both sides are exhausted enough to begin talking, perhaps with "encouragement" from Trump, who wants this mess off his desk so he won't need to make awkward decisions about American involvement. Talks would end-up in difficult concessions from both sides.
I believe Article V of the NATO Treaty is pie in the sky, and that hypothesis may get to be tested. Suppose the USA makes good on Trump's threat and marches into Greenland. What does Denmark do? It cannot fight the US alone. So does it trigger Article V? Having done so, do any of the other members see fit to go to war against the US in Greenland, and knowing the answer in advance, Denmark realizes Article V is at best a paper option, so doesn't go there. As long as NATO members are not prepared to risk lives against either of the superpowers, NATO remains a nice construct for cooperating on matters of mutual defense short of warfare, but nothing more. That makes Ukrainian membership a moot issue.
The best assurance Ukraine has against future invasion is how it has shown the extent to which it can make the cost of entanglement very high - not something Russia was expecting.
A sober and realistic description of the potential options, as of now, from Mr Freedman Senior as always; thank you. However perhaps not comprehensive. No mention of that three-dimensional war zone in the sky. And what about the sea? Where would the cease-fire line in the Black sea be? If there is to be some variety of "boots on the land two-dimensional zone, then there is certainly a role for different levels of airborne presence. Surely the greater a presence in the air, the less needed on the ground. Whereas I agree that the USA would be highly unlikely to put warm bodies into the land theatre, they might be open to 'enhancing air support in terms of AWACS and other elements, based outside of Ukraine itself. In addition any security "guarantees" given to Ukraine by the Western powers, would be substantially buttressed if there was a substantial effort to increase Ukraine's own air capabilities. Lots more F16, and the provision of permanent Ukraine bases in Poland would be very reassuring for Ukraine. So I would say that any arrangement envisaged with the objective of ceasing hostilities is even more complicated than Mr Freedman says. The logical conclusion is that such an arrangement with no change in the present balance of forces is a mirage. Something very serious has to happen in terms of the balance of forces for there to be even half-realistic solution. Only performative and non-serious talking is possible under present conditions, probably through most if not all of 2025. I think the Freedman duo should offer a multi-year subscription option ;-).
Russia wants and will achieve an Empire that includes all of Europe and the middle East, to the Indian and Chinese border, and all of Australaisia and Japan, as well as Canada and South America. None of these countries have the military or political will to prevent it. Trump will offer no resistance, so long as the US is left alone (or Trump World, as it will be renamed shortly). What all the countries have to do, if possible, is to negotiate a timetable for their orderly surrender.
Foreign Minister Lavrov said “No one has made any threats to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine”.
Yes, and nearly no one has attacked Ukraine with nuclear weapons since then. The Russian attack with an unloaded, intercontinental RS-26 Rubezh rocket must be an exception.
There is no way the West could trust Russia to keep any agreement. This is not Korea 1953 when both sides are exhausted and totally unable to defeat the other side. Russia has persuaded itself that Ukraine, colonised in the 17th century, is part of Russia, and will exhaust its armed forces to recover that position it lost when the USSR collapsed. Far better for the West to continue to aid Ukraine where it can until Trump is gone in 2029.
As ever a concise and sound assessment of the situation. Germany, France and the UK would all have challenges in making a credible contribution to a European multinational force to provide some type of committment to Ukraine. Currently the UK Govt promises to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence but currently there is no target year to meet this target or a willingness to accept that it may need to go to 3% or more of GDP. Our allies and adversaries will have noticed a British "senior government source" who briefed the Times that hitting the 2.5% of GDP target by 2030 "will mean deeper cuts to public services in the run-up to the election. It feels like a non-starter.” Under previous Labour leaders this type of off-the-record briefing would have lead to the "source" involved either being sacked or at least severely reprimanded (and of course this may have already happened). It would be very difficult for the UK military to deploy and properly support an enduring Brigade level presence to Urkraine without a very rapid move to 2.5% of GDP defence spending, and many would argue it needs 3% or more of GDP. Ukrainian and NATO military leaders are aware of this, and it is not hard to find the evidence in various Parliamentary Committee and NAO reports. No matter what the PM says to our European or US allies they will not think we are serious unless we can prove we are willing to put our money where our mouth is.
I think what this depressing but realistic analysis adds up to is that if Ukraine is fortunate, the present situation of it fighting the war with military material support from the West will continue until both sides are exhausted enough to begin talking, perhaps with "encouragement" from Trump, who wants this mess off his desk so he won't need to make awkward decisions about American involvement. Talks would end-up in difficult concessions from both sides.
I believe Article V of the NATO Treaty is pie in the sky, and that hypothesis may get to be tested. Suppose the USA makes good on Trump's threat and marches into Greenland. What does Denmark do? It cannot fight the US alone. So does it trigger Article V? Having done so, do any of the other members see fit to go to war against the US in Greenland, and knowing the answer in advance, Denmark realizes Article V is at best a paper option, so doesn't go there. As long as NATO members are not prepared to risk lives against either of the superpowers, NATO remains a nice construct for cooperating on matters of mutual defense short of warfare, but nothing more. That makes Ukrainian membership a moot issue.
The best assurance Ukraine has against future invasion is how it has shown the extent to which it can make the cost of entanglement very high - not something Russia was expecting.
A sober and realistic description of the potential options, as of now, from Mr Freedman Senior as always; thank you. However perhaps not comprehensive. No mention of that three-dimensional war zone in the sky. And what about the sea? Where would the cease-fire line in the Black sea be? If there is to be some variety of "boots on the land two-dimensional zone, then there is certainly a role for different levels of airborne presence. Surely the greater a presence in the air, the less needed on the ground. Whereas I agree that the USA would be highly unlikely to put warm bodies into the land theatre, they might be open to 'enhancing air support in terms of AWACS and other elements, based outside of Ukraine itself. In addition any security "guarantees" given to Ukraine by the Western powers, would be substantially buttressed if there was a substantial effort to increase Ukraine's own air capabilities. Lots more F16, and the provision of permanent Ukraine bases in Poland would be very reassuring for Ukraine. So I would say that any arrangement envisaged with the objective of ceasing hostilities is even more complicated than Mr Freedman says. The logical conclusion is that such an arrangement with no change in the present balance of forces is a mirage. Something very serious has to happen in terms of the balance of forces for there to be even half-realistic solution. Only performative and non-serious talking is possible under present conditions, probably through most if not all of 2025. I think the Freedman duo should offer a multi-year subscription option ;-).
Russia wants and will achieve an Empire that includes all of Europe and the middle East, to the Indian and Chinese border, and all of Australaisia and Japan, as well as Canada and South America. None of these countries have the military or political will to prevent it. Trump will offer no resistance, so long as the US is left alone (or Trump World, as it will be renamed shortly). What all the countries have to do, if possible, is to negotiate a timetable for their orderly surrender.
Foreign Minister Lavrov said “No one has made any threats to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine”.
Yes, and nearly no one has attacked Ukraine with nuclear weapons since then. The Russian attack with an unloaded, intercontinental RS-26 Rubezh rocket must be an exception.