A mountain was in labour, uttering immense groans,
and on earth there was very great expectation.
But it gave birth to a mouse. This has been written for you,
who, though you threaten great things, accomplish nothing.”
Sundays meeting of selected European leaders in London reminded me of the above Aesop fable.
Prime Minister Starmer’s summit, called for in haste, has achieved nothing:
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer rallied his European counterparts Sunday to shore up their borders and throw their full weight behind Ukraine as he announced outlines of a plan to end Russia’s war.
…
Starmer said he had worked with France and Ukraine on a plan to end the war and that the group of leaders — mostly from Europe — had agreed on four things.The steps toward peace would:
- keep aid flowing to Kyiv and maintain economic pressure on Russia to strengthen Ukraine’s hand;
- make sure Ukraine is at the bargaining table and any peace deal must ensure its sovereignty and security; and
- continue to arm Ukraine to deter future invasion.
- Finally, Starmer said they would develop a “coalition of the willing” to defend Ukraine and guarantee the peace.
“Not every nation will feel able to contribute but that can’t mean that we sit back,” he said. “Instead, those willing will intensify planning now with real urgency. The U.K. is prepared to back this with boots on the ground and planes in the air, together with others.”
It is far from certain whether Russian President Vladimir Putin will accept any such plan, which Starmer said would require strong U.S. backing. He did not specify what that meant, though he told the BBC before the summit that there were “intense discussions” to get a security guarantee from the U.S.
“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,” Starmer said.
Starmer said he will later bring a more formal plan to the U.S. and work with Trump.
That mouse the mountain gave birth to is stillborn:
– Trump has made clear that the U.S. will not agree to back any European forces in Ukraine.
– Zelenski, unless under more pressure, will not agree to a ceasefire without U.S. backing.
– Russia does not agree to any temporary ceasefire. It wants a new permanent security architecture for Europe and beyond.
– Russia does not agree to forces from NATO countries in Ukraine. It started the war to prevent that to happen.
– Russia will not agree to a rearming of Ukraine. Its declared aim is to ‘de-militarize’ the country.
– Russia is winning the war. Neither Starmer nor Europe have the means to prevent it from doing that.
What Starmer and Macron are trying to do now is the very same they had failed to do last week when the both made the pilgrimage to Washington DC:
Macron, Meloni and Starmer were among European leaders who spoke with both Trump and Zelenskiy over the weekend, as they tried to get the two men back to the table. They believe there’s still a narrow path to reviving the minerals deal that the presidents had planned to sign, giving the US leader a vested interest in deterring further Russian aggression against Ukraine.
They still want to win Trump’s agreement to prolong the war. I doubt that this second attempt will be more successful than their first try.
One wonders how Starmer and Macron became delusional enough would even try that plot. One reason may be that get advised my ‘military experts’ like these:
Despite President Volodymyr Zelensky’s efforts, the United States has made it clear that it does not intend to offer Ukraine security guarantees or directly contribute to any forces supporting Ukraine after the imposition of a ceasefire. It therefore falls upon Europe to plan for such a force. This is a serious undertaking. Can European powers field such a force without hollowing out Europe’s ability to defend NATO’s borders, all while the United States potentially withdraws forces from the continent?
While the length of front and the size of Russian ground forces may give the impression that the task is infeasible, in our view it is practicable if European nations are willing to pay the cost. With the right force balance, investment, and political framework Europe could generate a credible commitment.
There is nothing fantastical about a European mission in Ukraine.
Watling and Kofman, the authors of the above, call for the deployment of three(!) European brigades to Ukraine:
Given the significant degradation in Russian force quality over the course of the last three years of fighting, the initial force deployed could be as few as three combat brigades, or their equivalents.
Since the start of the war the Russian forces in Ukraine have more than doubled in size. Russia is now producing more missiles and drones than ever before. Its soldiers have gained valuable experience. How can this be seen as a ‘degradation in Russian force quality’?
Ukraine itself has deployed some 100 brigades in the war and Russia about twice that many.
How three inexperienced multinational brigades from western Europe could in any way effect that balance is way beyond me.
Is there any way to direct these people to a more realistic and sane view of the world?
Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.
