Ukraine, Diplomacy and War
By Craig Murray
By Craig Murray
March 6, 2025
Source: Craig Murray
Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer (R) and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky (L) pose for a photo during a bilateral meeting at 10 Downing Street in London, Britain, 01 March 2025. EPA/CHRIS J. RATCLIFFE / POOL Dostawca: PAP/EPA.
When politicians in power are extremely unpopular, they generally turn to militarism and jingoism for a quick boost. Starmer is now the darling of the UK media for his sabre-rattling over Ukraine and is busily churning out tweets of military imagery.
In doing so he is attempting to pose as in defiance of Trump, and capitalise on Trump’s unpopularity in the UK, even though just two days earlier he was fawning on Trump in the White House and inviting him on an “unprecedented” second State visit.
As ever, there is a great deal of smoke and mirrors here. The European leaders are going to come up with an alternative “peace plan” to present to Trump. This will not be along the lines of the G7 Declaration which was strongly anti-Russian. The European leaders acknowledge that the Biden-era G7 Apulia position is now gone.
Instead the new European plan will essentially give Trump pretty well everything he wants, but give the Europeans a ladder to climb down. Starmer is seeking to be hailed as the great bridger of the Atlantic, who explained Trump to Europe and vice versa.
If Trump were an ordinary politician he would then agree to adopt the “European” plan brought to him by Starmer, with a couple of tiny amendments, and then take the joint position into talks with Putin. But Trump being Trump, he might just tell Starmer to stay out of it.
Both the European and American peace plans will involve Putin keeping control over the large majority of the land his troops hold – because otherwise Putin will not agree, and there will be no point. The European plan will have elements designed to blur the sovereignty issue of the Ukrainian land Russia will retain. This will not run once real negotiations with Russia are underway.
As always, money talks and big business is really pulling the strings. Zelensky did not in the event sign the minerals deal with Trump and is now desperate to do so to try to get American cash flowing his way again.
It is worth noting that Starmer’s delusional “Hundred Year Alliance” agreement with Zelensky contained the UK’s attempt to grab the same minerals Zelensky is now asking again to be allowed to hand over to Trump.
You find this in the UK/Ukraine 100 Year Partnership at “Pillar 5, Para 3, article iv”
(iv) supporting development of a Ukrainian critical minerals strategy and necessary regulatory structures required to support the maximisation of benefits from Ukraine’s natural resources, through the possible establishment of a Joint Working Group;
While we are on the subject, most people sensibly ignored the detail of this crazy “100 year” agreement on the entirely sensible grounds that none of it is ever going to happen. But it does contain some remarkable declarations of malevolent intent, of which my favourite is the desire to open a joint online propaganda unit to interfere in the legacy and social media of third countries.
Which we find outlined in fluent Orwellian at “Pillar 7, Para 4”.
Implement joint media initiatives, contributing to coordinated efforts to promote shared values and vision, addressing the information manipulation and malign interference in third party countries. We commit to partnering on joint initiatives such as communication campaigns to mitigate against those threats. We commit to facilitate strengthening of relationships with civil society organisations to support research and the development of counter-FIMI approaches, recognising the importance of independent media and civil society organisations in building societal resilience.
Which is of course precisely what they are always accusing Russia of doing. Indeed alleged Russian social media interference is why they interfered to have the anti-war winner of the first round of the Romanian elections disqualified.
What this plan amounts to is another Integrity Initiative, this time as a UK/Ukrainian co-production.
One thing I learnt in over 20 years as a diplomat is that the public are generally fed lies about diplomatic discussions. Most diplomatic talks generally end up with an agreed communique that is designed to make everyone look good and may only have a slight link to actual events.
This is especially true with regard to human rights, where in my substantial experience claims that human rights abuses were being dealt with by “quiet diplomacy” were almost always a lie.
A British minister cannot meet a Saudi or Chinese minister without being asked if they raised human rights. The answer given is always “yes” and it is almost always untrue, or it was raised so briefly, quietly and apologetically that it is virtually untrue.
So there is a sense in which the Trump/Vance encounter in the Oval Office with Zelensky was refreshing, in that what you saw is what you got. It was only in being in public that it was more bruising than many diplomatic encounters. I suspect it has shortened the war, especially if Trump sticks to the decision to end aid.
Shortening the war would be a good thing. If you think a principle is so important that you believe it is fine for millions of people to die for it – none of whom are yourself – I suggest you reconsider your principles. I am not so exercised about who is the mayor of Russian-speaking Lugansk that I am prepared to have a nuclear war over the issue.
What I find particularly alarming is the continuing comparison of Putin to Hitler, and the allegation that if Putin is not “stopped” in Ukraine, then he will conquer the whole of Europe.
This is a quite extraordinary example of false analogy. Putin has never shown any indication of following a universal ideology he wishes to impose by conquest, or of territorial ambition beyond a small number of Russian-speaking ex-Soviet districts contiguous to Russia.
In addition to which, Russia is gradually winning a war of attrition against a much smaller neighbour, which is to be expected. Ukraine has survived this long with massive Western aid. But the idea that the Russian army is capable of conquering the whole of Europe, when it cannot subdue Kiev, is plainly utter nonsense. Even aside from the fact there is absolutely no desire in Moscow to do so.
Trump has pointed at NATO and revealed the Emperor’s New Clothes. NATO was formed to counter a Soviet alliance that did possess a universal ideology it wished to spread, and did have the military strength to threaten (though it should be stated not even the Soviet Union ever had any intention of invading Britain or formulated plans to do so). That threat has now passed.
The attempt to use the farcical Salisbury incident as evidence of a Russian threat to the UK population is, frankly, pathetic.
It is hard sometimes to follow the workings of the propaganda machine. At what stage did the crazy narrative that Russia blew up its own Nord Stream pipeline get abandoned?
Russia destroying the pipeline was unanimously and loudly proclaimed by the entire legacy media and the entire political class of the Western world. Those of us who pointed out this was not true were denounced and ridiculed. Yet now the narrative has quietly been dropped, and the truth is occasionally acknowledged by the media. Though with no admission of the previous lies.
How does this cycle operate? Is it centrally determined, or is it organic? Were the media really stupid enough to believe Russia destroyed Nord Stream, or were they knowingly lying? How have the German people been persuaded to accept the massive damage the increase in energy costs did to industrial employment? These are fascinating fields of study.
European politicians who have made a career of Russophobe rhetoric are suddenly naked in the breeze. They are charging around banging the drum of war, threatening to mobilise armies they do not possess and convinced that preserving their own place in the socio-economic hierarchy is well worth the threat of nuclear oblivion.
Laughter is the best response to their pretension.
Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer (R) and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky (L) pose for a photo during a bilateral meeting at 10 Downing Street in London, Britain, 01 March 2025. EPA/CHRIS J. RATCLIFFE / POOL Dostawca: PAP/EPA.
When politicians in power are extremely unpopular, they generally turn to militarism and jingoism for a quick boost. Starmer is now the darling of the UK media for his sabre-rattling over Ukraine and is busily churning out tweets of military imagery.
In doing so he is attempting to pose as in defiance of Trump, and capitalise on Trump’s unpopularity in the UK, even though just two days earlier he was fawning on Trump in the White House and inviting him on an “unprecedented” second State visit.
As ever, there is a great deal of smoke and mirrors here. The European leaders are going to come up with an alternative “peace plan” to present to Trump. This will not be along the lines of the G7 Declaration which was strongly anti-Russian. The European leaders acknowledge that the Biden-era G7 Apulia position is now gone.
Instead the new European plan will essentially give Trump pretty well everything he wants, but give the Europeans a ladder to climb down. Starmer is seeking to be hailed as the great bridger of the Atlantic, who explained Trump to Europe and vice versa.
If Trump were an ordinary politician he would then agree to adopt the “European” plan brought to him by Starmer, with a couple of tiny amendments, and then take the joint position into talks with Putin. But Trump being Trump, he might just tell Starmer to stay out of it.
Both the European and American peace plans will involve Putin keeping control over the large majority of the land his troops hold – because otherwise Putin will not agree, and there will be no point. The European plan will have elements designed to blur the sovereignty issue of the Ukrainian land Russia will retain. This will not run once real negotiations with Russia are underway.
As always, money talks and big business is really pulling the strings. Zelensky did not in the event sign the minerals deal with Trump and is now desperate to do so to try to get American cash flowing his way again.
It is worth noting that Starmer’s delusional “Hundred Year Alliance” agreement with Zelensky contained the UK’s attempt to grab the same minerals Zelensky is now asking again to be allowed to hand over to Trump.
You find this in the UK/Ukraine 100 Year Partnership at “Pillar 5, Para 3, article iv”
(iv) supporting development of a Ukrainian critical minerals strategy and necessary regulatory structures required to support the maximisation of benefits from Ukraine’s natural resources, through the possible establishment of a Joint Working Group;
While we are on the subject, most people sensibly ignored the detail of this crazy “100 year” agreement on the entirely sensible grounds that none of it is ever going to happen. But it does contain some remarkable declarations of malevolent intent, of which my favourite is the desire to open a joint online propaganda unit to interfere in the legacy and social media of third countries.
Which we find outlined in fluent Orwellian at “Pillar 7, Para 4”.
Implement joint media initiatives, contributing to coordinated efforts to promote shared values and vision, addressing the information manipulation and malign interference in third party countries. We commit to partnering on joint initiatives such as communication campaigns to mitigate against those threats. We commit to facilitate strengthening of relationships with civil society organisations to support research and the development of counter-FIMI approaches, recognising the importance of independent media and civil society organisations in building societal resilience.
Which is of course precisely what they are always accusing Russia of doing. Indeed alleged Russian social media interference is why they interfered to have the anti-war winner of the first round of the Romanian elections disqualified.
What this plan amounts to is another Integrity Initiative, this time as a UK/Ukrainian co-production.
One thing I learnt in over 20 years as a diplomat is that the public are generally fed lies about diplomatic discussions. Most diplomatic talks generally end up with an agreed communique that is designed to make everyone look good and may only have a slight link to actual events.
This is especially true with regard to human rights, where in my substantial experience claims that human rights abuses were being dealt with by “quiet diplomacy” were almost always a lie.
A British minister cannot meet a Saudi or Chinese minister without being asked if they raised human rights. The answer given is always “yes” and it is almost always untrue, or it was raised so briefly, quietly and apologetically that it is virtually untrue.
So there is a sense in which the Trump/Vance encounter in the Oval Office with Zelensky was refreshing, in that what you saw is what you got. It was only in being in public that it was more bruising than many diplomatic encounters. I suspect it has shortened the war, especially if Trump sticks to the decision to end aid.
Shortening the war would be a good thing. If you think a principle is so important that you believe it is fine for millions of people to die for it – none of whom are yourself – I suggest you reconsider your principles. I am not so exercised about who is the mayor of Russian-speaking Lugansk that I am prepared to have a nuclear war over the issue.
What I find particularly alarming is the continuing comparison of Putin to Hitler, and the allegation that if Putin is not “stopped” in Ukraine, then he will conquer the whole of Europe.
This is a quite extraordinary example of false analogy. Putin has never shown any indication of following a universal ideology he wishes to impose by conquest, or of territorial ambition beyond a small number of Russian-speaking ex-Soviet districts contiguous to Russia.
In addition to which, Russia is gradually winning a war of attrition against a much smaller neighbour, which is to be expected. Ukraine has survived this long with massive Western aid. But the idea that the Russian army is capable of conquering the whole of Europe, when it cannot subdue Kiev, is plainly utter nonsense. Even aside from the fact there is absolutely no desire in Moscow to do so.
Trump has pointed at NATO and revealed the Emperor’s New Clothes. NATO was formed to counter a Soviet alliance that did possess a universal ideology it wished to spread, and did have the military strength to threaten (though it should be stated not even the Soviet Union ever had any intention of invading Britain or formulated plans to do so). That threat has now passed.
The attempt to use the farcical Salisbury incident as evidence of a Russian threat to the UK population is, frankly, pathetic.
It is hard sometimes to follow the workings of the propaganda machine. At what stage did the crazy narrative that Russia blew up its own Nord Stream pipeline get abandoned?
Russia destroying the pipeline was unanimously and loudly proclaimed by the entire legacy media and the entire political class of the Western world. Those of us who pointed out this was not true were denounced and ridiculed. Yet now the narrative has quietly been dropped, and the truth is occasionally acknowledged by the media. Though with no admission of the previous lies.
How does this cycle operate? Is it centrally determined, or is it organic? Were the media really stupid enough to believe Russia destroyed Nord Stream, or were they knowingly lying? How have the German people been persuaded to accept the massive damage the increase in energy costs did to industrial employment? These are fascinating fields of study.
European politicians who have made a career of Russophobe rhetoric are suddenly naked in the breeze. They are charging around banging the drum of war, threatening to mobilise armies they do not possess and convinced that preserving their own place in the socio-economic hierarchy is well worth the threat of nuclear oblivion.
Laughter is the best response to their pretension.
\By Vijay Prashad
March 6, 2025
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.
Stop Fueling War Demonstration at the Finnish Parliament House. rajatonvimma /// VJ Group Random Doctors, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
The whole thing is a fiasco. The theatrical drama in the White House’s Oval Office triggered a series of predictable responses around the world. Outrage at US President Donald Trump for his rudeness and ridicule for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy were some of the reactions. Then, the failure of French President Emmanuel Macron to create a European agreement with the United Kingdom’s Keir Starmer and Zelenskyy revealed the absolute dead ends that confront this exhausted war in Ukraine. The question that these discussions provoke is simple: is there an exit for this war?
Permanent War
If the war aims of Zelenskyy and his European partners are to weaken Russia or to overthrow the government of Vladimir Putin, then this war might either go on forever or accelerate into a dangerous nuclear scenario. Opinion polls in Russia show that Putin’s approval rating is now at 87%. Even with a mountain of salt, this is far higher than the approval rating in France for Macron. With Russia’s economy resilient during this war, it is unlikely that it will be further weakened with the continuation of hostilities. What the evidence shows, however, is that Europe’s economy is suffering from war inflation that has not been reduced. If this war is to continue, Macron said, then European states would have to increase their military spending to 3% or 3.5% of their GDP. This would further damage the living situation of most Europeans. Would young, working-class Europeans be willing to go and man the dangerous frontline in Ukraine on behalf of a war aim (weakening Russia) that is impossible? It is unlikely. (There is a separate cruelty of middle-class Ukrainians fleeing the country for Western Europe and then working-class Western Europeans being asked to come and defend that country for them).
A permanent war will lead to unnecessary loss of life in Ukraine and to a permanent economic crisis in Europe. It is also unlikely because the United States will not financially and militarily back such a war indefinitely, resulting in the collapse of any long-term European commitment to Ukraine.
The Korean Solution
If neither Ukraine nor Russia are willing to move to a ceasefire and then a negotiated settlement (which would include security guarantees for all sides), then there is the possibility that the current frontline that stretches from northern to eastern Ukraine will become a permanent Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). Ukraine would thereby be divided indefinitely with an immense waste of social wealth to maintain a perpetual frontline. This is the most likely scenario, although it might not be palatable for Europeans to have a Korea within their continent.
The South Korean military maintains 600,000 troops along the 38th Parallel, alongside almost 30,000 US troops. Much the same is the situation in the north. Billions of dollars are spent annually on surveillance and logistics for over 900 square miles of territory that is not available for economic use. Europe would have to underwrite this Korean solution for Ukraine for eternity (just as the United States provides guarantees and funds to South Korea, and China does the same for North Korea).
A Security Consortium
The Helsinki Process that emerged to bring the US and USSR into negotiations in 1975 and that formed the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has played almost no role for peace in the war on Ukraine.
The only interlocutors that have been given permission to speak about the war in Ukraine on behalf of Zelenskyy have been the United States, the Western European leaders, the leaders of the European Union (EU), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Leaders from Europe’s east – apart from those who are integrated into the NATO-EU – have been either silent or told that their opinions do not matter. But it is these eastern European countries that share with Ukraine the fact of having a border with Russia, and it is these countries that most need to form a security consortium that includes Russia and provides mutual guarantees. Those countries that directly share a border with Russia’s west are – from north to south – Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan (Lithuania and Poland share a border with the Kaliningrad Oblast, which is a Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea). Three of them (Finland, Estonia, and Latvia) are members of NATO and of the EU, while one of them (Norway) is a NATO member but not in the EU.
Would it be possible for these eight countries to call a conference with Russia on the broader issues of security rather than the narrow issue of Ukraine? That three countries that border Russia are already NATO members (one of them, Norway, was a founding member in 1949) suggests that the problems in Ukraine are separate from NATO membership itself. Rather, they stem from anxiety about a border line created in a hurry when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 (this impacts Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, but not Norway and Finland, which were not part of the Soviet Union).
In the early 1980s, former Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme chaired the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues, whose 1982 report Common Security: A Programme for Disarmament made the case that ‘The task of diplomacy is to limit, split, and subdivide conflicts, not to generalize and aggregate them’. In other words, all conflicts cannot be settled at the same time. A ceasefire is good in itself; the issues to resolve need to be separated, and those that are easier dealt with first to build confidence. To bundle all issues into one problem makes a dispute intractable.
The countries that border each other, including those that border Russia to its south and east, must live next to each other. They cannot lift themselves out of their geography and go elsewhere. Ukraine cannot be relocated to France. It must remain beside Russia. In that case, these countries need to find a way to build trust.
To begin with, the assertion that one cannot trust a neighbour is the worst way to build confidence between the peoples of neighbouring countries. Neither the EU nor NATO (without full US military backing) can subordinate Russia and force it to bow before Ukraine. A British cabinet minister said last year that his country would last only six months in a full-scale war with Russia. Meanwhile, a Kiel Institute for the World Economy report suggests that Germany is spending its money buying weapons but does not have a standing army capable of self-defence, let alone winning an offensive war against Russia. Europe, without the United States, is a shadow.
It would behove all parties if a country that borders Russia calls for such a security consortium to be built and if it is able to get guarantees from NATO not to expand further eastward and from Russia to draw back its military from the border regions. There are long relations among these countries, with families on both sides of the border. Any lessened tension in general is good for humanity, and if such a manoeuvre will lead to peace in Ukraine, that would be far better than a permanent scar on this part of the European continent.
This article was produced by Globetrotter and No Cold War.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate
Vijay Prashad
Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism and (with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power.
Stop Fueling War Demonstration at the Finnish Parliament House. rajatonvimma /// VJ Group Random Doctors, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
The whole thing is a fiasco. The theatrical drama in the White House’s Oval Office triggered a series of predictable responses around the world. Outrage at US President Donald Trump for his rudeness and ridicule for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy were some of the reactions. Then, the failure of French President Emmanuel Macron to create a European agreement with the United Kingdom’s Keir Starmer and Zelenskyy revealed the absolute dead ends that confront this exhausted war in Ukraine. The question that these discussions provoke is simple: is there an exit for this war?
Permanent War
If the war aims of Zelenskyy and his European partners are to weaken Russia or to overthrow the government of Vladimir Putin, then this war might either go on forever or accelerate into a dangerous nuclear scenario. Opinion polls in Russia show that Putin’s approval rating is now at 87%. Even with a mountain of salt, this is far higher than the approval rating in France for Macron. With Russia’s economy resilient during this war, it is unlikely that it will be further weakened with the continuation of hostilities. What the evidence shows, however, is that Europe’s economy is suffering from war inflation that has not been reduced. If this war is to continue, Macron said, then European states would have to increase their military spending to 3% or 3.5% of their GDP. This would further damage the living situation of most Europeans. Would young, working-class Europeans be willing to go and man the dangerous frontline in Ukraine on behalf of a war aim (weakening Russia) that is impossible? It is unlikely. (There is a separate cruelty of middle-class Ukrainians fleeing the country for Western Europe and then working-class Western Europeans being asked to come and defend that country for them).
A permanent war will lead to unnecessary loss of life in Ukraine and to a permanent economic crisis in Europe. It is also unlikely because the United States will not financially and militarily back such a war indefinitely, resulting in the collapse of any long-term European commitment to Ukraine.
The Korean Solution
If neither Ukraine nor Russia are willing to move to a ceasefire and then a negotiated settlement (which would include security guarantees for all sides), then there is the possibility that the current frontline that stretches from northern to eastern Ukraine will become a permanent Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). Ukraine would thereby be divided indefinitely with an immense waste of social wealth to maintain a perpetual frontline. This is the most likely scenario, although it might not be palatable for Europeans to have a Korea within their continent.
The South Korean military maintains 600,000 troops along the 38th Parallel, alongside almost 30,000 US troops. Much the same is the situation in the north. Billions of dollars are spent annually on surveillance and logistics for over 900 square miles of territory that is not available for economic use. Europe would have to underwrite this Korean solution for Ukraine for eternity (just as the United States provides guarantees and funds to South Korea, and China does the same for North Korea).
A Security Consortium
The Helsinki Process that emerged to bring the US and USSR into negotiations in 1975 and that formed the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has played almost no role for peace in the war on Ukraine.
The only interlocutors that have been given permission to speak about the war in Ukraine on behalf of Zelenskyy have been the United States, the Western European leaders, the leaders of the European Union (EU), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Leaders from Europe’s east – apart from those who are integrated into the NATO-EU – have been either silent or told that their opinions do not matter. But it is these eastern European countries that share with Ukraine the fact of having a border with Russia, and it is these countries that most need to form a security consortium that includes Russia and provides mutual guarantees. Those countries that directly share a border with Russia’s west are – from north to south – Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan (Lithuania and Poland share a border with the Kaliningrad Oblast, which is a Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea). Three of them (Finland, Estonia, and Latvia) are members of NATO and of the EU, while one of them (Norway) is a NATO member but not in the EU.
Would it be possible for these eight countries to call a conference with Russia on the broader issues of security rather than the narrow issue of Ukraine? That three countries that border Russia are already NATO members (one of them, Norway, was a founding member in 1949) suggests that the problems in Ukraine are separate from NATO membership itself. Rather, they stem from anxiety about a border line created in a hurry when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 (this impacts Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, but not Norway and Finland, which were not part of the Soviet Union).
In the early 1980s, former Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme chaired the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues, whose 1982 report Common Security: A Programme for Disarmament made the case that ‘The task of diplomacy is to limit, split, and subdivide conflicts, not to generalize and aggregate them’. In other words, all conflicts cannot be settled at the same time. A ceasefire is good in itself; the issues to resolve need to be separated, and those that are easier dealt with first to build confidence. To bundle all issues into one problem makes a dispute intractable.
The countries that border each other, including those that border Russia to its south and east, must live next to each other. They cannot lift themselves out of their geography and go elsewhere. Ukraine cannot be relocated to France. It must remain beside Russia. In that case, these countries need to find a way to build trust.
To begin with, the assertion that one cannot trust a neighbour is the worst way to build confidence between the peoples of neighbouring countries. Neither the EU nor NATO (without full US military backing) can subordinate Russia and force it to bow before Ukraine. A British cabinet minister said last year that his country would last only six months in a full-scale war with Russia. Meanwhile, a Kiel Institute for the World Economy report suggests that Germany is spending its money buying weapons but does not have a standing army capable of self-defence, let alone winning an offensive war against Russia. Europe, without the United States, is a shadow.
It would behove all parties if a country that borders Russia calls for such a security consortium to be built and if it is able to get guarantees from NATO not to expand further eastward and from Russia to draw back its military from the border regions. There are long relations among these countries, with families on both sides of the border. Any lessened tension in general is good for humanity, and if such a manoeuvre will lead to peace in Ukraine, that would be far better than a permanent scar on this part of the European continent.
This article was produced by Globetrotter and No Cold War.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate
Vijay Prashad
Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism and (with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power.
Tings Chak is the art director and a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and lead author of the study “Serve the People: The Eradication of Extreme Poverty in China.” She is also a member of Dongsheng, an international collective of researchers interested in Chinese politics and society.
No comments:
Post a Comment