Starmer says he thinks Trump wants to see a lasting peace in Ukraine despite his rhetoric and attitude towards Zelenskyy. “Everybody agrees with that apart from Putin,” he told the BBC. By “lasting peace”, Starmer means a “US backstop”, along with “security guarantees” provided by European countries and a “strong Ukraine” armed with defensive capabilities to resist the Russian invasion.
[1]
No. Trump does not want to get tangled up in Ukraine’s war with Russia. They have been pretty clear so far; no US security guarantees. I can’t see them changing this in any significant way. The “strong Ukraine armed with defensive capabilities” is also a non-starter, given that one of Russia’s central demands is the demilitarisation of Ukraine. It just seems that Starmer is living in a delayed universe – he is stuck in the world as it was about 6 months ago. Then there was not even any prospect of peace and talk such as sending European soldiers to Ukraine was easy. This “European peacekeeping army” which he and Macron are thinking they are going to get together and send to Ukraine is not going to happen. Russia is not going to accept it. Thank God. Because if they did Kiev would immediately enlist it as a private army and start the war again.
Starmer also says:
I am clear about is that if there is to be a deal, if there is to be a stopping of the fighting, then that agreement has to be defended, because the worst of all outcomes is that there is a temporary pause, and then Putin comes again.
That has happened in the past. I think it is a real risk, and that is why we must ensure that if there’s a deal, it’s a lasting deal, not a temporary pause.
I wonder if any journalist thought to ask Starmer what he meant by “that has happened in the past”? Did any journalist not think to ask him about Merkel openly claiming she signed Minsk in bad faith? One reason why, in our ‘democracy’, these people can produce their entirely one-sided narratives is that the ‘free and independent’ media kindly and delicately never asks them difficult questions. Instead the free media just fulfils its role as PR for the war machine.
Sadly, the only real point of this plan, by Starmer and Macron, is that, in Marcon’s case it is about him grandstanding and ‘playing a big role’ and in Starmer’s case it is about ‘putting Britain on the world stage’. There is no serious thought about Ukraine’s interests, Russia’s legitimate interests, what could work for any possible ‘peace process’ or. anything. It is self-interested and disconnected from reality. It is a narrative related game. It is, of course, also necessary that, as they cave in to the US’s disengagement from Ukraine, they appear strong so they can save face. I think they are going to have to find some other way to appear strong.
Incidentally I also read today that Marcon says he believes that after Ukraine Putin will attack Moldovia and Romania. Is he nuts? This must be deliberate “threat inflation”. He can’t seriously believe that Russia is going to attack NATO.
Notes