One thing I learned in California when I was a schoolboy at John Muir Elementary in Berkeley and on our family camping trips to Yosemite National Park was “don’t poke the bear”. The nastiest nightmare the West faces is another Russia collusion scandal, but of a quite different kind in which Russia and China collude to defeat the West. When Trump gets irritable about Zelenskyy you have to remember Zelenskyy’s role in the scandalously fake Russia Collusion allegations cooked up by never-Trumpers and deep state operatives who refused to accept the legitimate democratic results of the 2016 election and did everything possible to paralyse the first Trump presidency. So it makes sense to preempt Russia-China collusion and break the 20th century pattern by doing whatever it takes to ‘bring the bear back’ into the Western historical orbit. For the ever-weakening West these are dangerous times and I welcome attempts to break the geopolitical mould. I always felt fearful that Ukraine would drain resources and diminish the West’s ability to focus on the priorities. Top of those priorities should the reinvigoration of Schumpeterian tech capitalism and the Western political model of separation of powers, and the containment of China’s communist expansionism. I supported Henry Kissinger when he warned against extending NATO to the Russian borderlands. Don’t poke the bear, I imagined him saying. Now I offer you the original Kissinger position and recent commentary that may help generate fissions within the UK, the only European country that is fully politically united behind Ukraine’s cause.
by MGH
How the Ukraine Crisis Ends
by Henry A. Kissinger
The Washington Post, March 6, 2014
Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.
Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.
Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.
The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.
The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.
The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939, when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian, became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or breakup. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.
Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrate that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanukovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.
Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.
Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.
Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:
1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.
2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.
3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.
4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.
These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.
Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.
[END]
Freddy Gray
The cruellest thing about Trump vs Zelensky? Trump’s right
20 February 2025, The Spectator
And just like that, we are back in 2017. Donald Trump, the President of the United States, is posting ridiculous hyperbole on his socials and mouthing off from Mar-a-Lago, as he always has.
In the last 24 hours, however, the global political and media classes have gone back to gnashing their teeth and wailing in the way they did in Trump’s first term. It’s disgraceful! It’s sub-literate! He’s Vladimir Putin’s puppet! He’s reckless and utterly out of control! And that, of course, is the point.
Trump’s re-election proved that he is no aberration, so in 2025 the liberal, western world order has tried to come to terms with him. Western statesmen took turns to recognise his achievements, or his mandate, and to distance themselves from their past condemnations. But this was all insincere politesse and it was never going to work. Trump doesn’t care. His mandate is to cripple their authority. And on the international stage, Ukraine was always going to be the breaking point.
The West has invested a huge amount of capital – political, economic and strategic – in the fight against Russia, and it has failed. Trump knows that and so he’s ending the war: if that means insulting Volodymyr Zelensky, parroting Russian talking points and playing nice with Putin, so be it.
Fact-checkers have been queueing up to rebut Trump’s incoherent Truth Social post last night, which is worth reposting here in full:
Think of it, a modestly successful comedian, Volodymyr Zelensky, talked the United States of America into spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn’t be won, that never had to start, but a War that he, without the U.S. and “TRUMP,” will never be able to settle. The United States has spent $200 Billion Dollars more than Europe, and Europe’s money is guaranteed, while the United States will get nothing back. Why didn’t Sleepy Joe Biden demand Equalization, in that this War is far more important to Europe than it is to us – We have a big, beautiful Ocean as separation. On top of this, Zelenskyy admits that half of the money we sent him is “MISSING.” He refuses to have Elections, is very low in Ukrainian Polls, and the only thing he was good at was playing Biden “like a fiddle.” A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left. In the meantime, we are successfully negotiating an end to the War with Russia, something all admit only “TRUMP,” and the Trump Administration, can do. Biden never tried, Europe has failed to bring Peace, and Zelenskyy probably wants to keep the “gravy train” going. I love Ukraine, but Zelenskyy has done a terrible job, his Country is shattered, and MILLIONS have unnecessarily died – And so it continues…
And so it does.
To westerners who have spent years grandstanding against Putin, such words are anathema. To the many Ukrainians who have fought and died fighting Russian forces in their country, such rhetoric is beyond reprehensible. But if you can somehow look through the insensitivity, the febrile exaggerations, the score-settling with Zelensky, the half-lies and the cruel braggadocio, you have to admit that he is right – or at least not wrong.
Only offensive, odious Donald could end the war in Ukraine, which he is now doing. Europe has failed to bring peace. In a press conference on Tuesday, Trump said that Ukrainians shouldn’t complain about not being involved in his dialogue with Russia: ‘Well, you’ve been there for three years… you should have ended it three years… You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.’ That’s been widely interpreted as him saying that Ukraine started the war, and while his choice of words was poor, in context he is clearly referring to the thwarted efforts to achieve peace in the conflict’s early days in 2022. Trump is also right to say that vast amounts of western funding to Ukraine have gone missing, because the country is – and always has been – deeply corrupt.
For European leaders who have spent years advocating on behalf of Ukraine, the most painful part will be Trump’s reckoning on Zelensky. In the days and months that followed Russia’s invasion, when Ukraine’s President bravely stayed in Kyiv and led Ukraine’s impressive resistance, Zelensky became a western hero. People called him a 21st-century Churchill. He was fêted in European capitals, Hollywood and on the cover of Vogue magazine as young men killed each other on the front line.
There’s no doubt that, in our eagerness to champion the man in the military fatigues, we overlooked the more sordid aspects of his leadership. The Pandora papers showing his links to shady offshore bank accounts were forgotten about. His ties to deeply corrupt and double-dealing oligarchs, such as Ihor Kolomoisky, were brushed over. His ruthless suppression of Moscow-affiliated religious groups was dismissed as Kremlin ‘disinformation’.
Western politicians, and military-industrial types who have made a lot of money from the war effort, have always known, deep down, that in supporting Ukraine against Putin they have covered up awkward truths. What really frightens them now is not necessarily Trump’s recklessness. It’s that the murkier realities of the Ukraine-Russia relationship and the West’s involvement in the conflict going back to 2014 and before, may soon come to light.
[END]
Owen Matthews
Could Zelensky have made a deal to stop the war?
19 February 2025, The Spectator
Is there any truth to Donald Trump’s extraordinary and, to many, highly offensive comments apparently blaming Volodymir Zelensky for starting the war? Speaking to reporters at Mar-a-Lago, Trump said he was ‘disappointed’ that the Ukrainian leader complained about being left out of talks between the US and Russia in Riyad and claimed that Zelensky ‘could have made a deal’ to avert war. A ‘half baked’ negotiator could have secured a settlement years ago ‘without the loss of much land,’ claimed Trump.
Trump is factually wrong – but not for the reason most commentators have assumed. Zelensky could indeed have averted the war back in October 2019, and came very close to doing so. But the deal that would have kept Donbas inside Ukraine was derailed not by Zelensky but by violent threats from Ukrainian ultranationalists.
The story of the failed Donbas referendum is now little remembered. But it marked a crucial turning point in the Kremlin’s path to full-scale invasion two and a half years later. Also forgotten is the fact that Zelensky was elected by a massive 73 per cent of the vote in May 2019 on a platform of bringing peace with Russia, defusing Ukraine’s ongoing culture wars over the Russian language and returning the two rebel regions of the Donbas to Kyiv’s fold.
Paradoxically, back then the Kremlin agreed with Zelensky. Putin had invaded the Crimean peninsula in February 2014 and formally declared it part of the Russian Federation three months later. But the self-declared People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk (LDNR) were a different story. Though crawling with agents from Russia’s Federal Security Service and military intelligence, as well as Russian soldiers disguised as locals, the Donbas republics were not formally occupied by Moscow. Indeed the Kremlin repeatedly insisted that the enclaves were part of Ukraine, including at both rounds of peace talks in Minsk in 2014 and 2015.
Putin’s bottom-line strategic goal was to keep Ukraine out of Nato. Between 2014 and 2019, the Kremlin’s strategy for achieving this was to push for the rebel republics to rejoin Ukraine, but under a new constitutional arrangement that would have given them a veto on the country’s international alliances.
Zelensky’s predecessor Petro Poroshenko was strongly opposed to a more federal Ukraine and dragged his feet on a commitment he had made in Minsk to hold local referendums in the rebel republics. But if a new constitution was the price of peace, Zelensky was ready to pay it. In June 2019 he appointed former president Leonid Kuchma – a veteran of talks with Moscow who had longstanding contacts in Russia – as Ukraine’s representative in the Tripartite Contact Group for a settlement of the conflict. In July, Zelensky held his first telephone conversation with Putin and urged him to enter into a new round of talks mediated by European countries, as well as arranging confidence-building prisoner swaps (though Putin, characteristically, reneged on key elements of the exchange).
Zelensky finally stuck a referendum deal after several rounds of negotiations with the thuggish LDNR leadership and with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE, which was monitoring a ceasefire. The citizens of the rebel republics would be asked whether they wished to rejoin Ukraine on pre-secession terms, or under a new self-governing status. The referendum would be overseen and certified by the OSCE. Zelensky’s hope was that the republics would return to Kyiv’s control in a new federal system, Ukraine would stay out of Nato, and the threat of further invasion would be defused. The price would be to effectively acknowledge the loss of Crimea. The prize was that Russia would no longer have a reason to threaten Ukraine’s independence.
Unhelpfully, separatist media in the occupied Donbas crowed that Zelensky’s signing of the agreement was ‘a victory for the DNR and the LNR over Ukraine.’ But the most passionate opposition to Zelensky’s initiative came from hardline Ukrainian nationalists. Thousands of protesters gathered on Kyiv’s Maidan Square under the slogan ‘No capitulation!’ More menacingly, several Ukrainian nationalist militias, including the Azov Battalion that was then fighting in the Luhansk region of Donbas, refused to accept the agreement. Andriy Biletsky, the leader of the far-right National Corps and first commander of the Azov Battalion, accused Zelensky of ‘disrespecting’ veterans and of acting on behalf of the Kremlin. Zelensky met Biletsky and other militia leaders in an attempt to convince them to surrender their unregistered weapons and accept the peace accord. They refused, and the referendum plan collapsed – and with it any realistic chance of peace in Donbas.
By the time Putin and Zelensky held their first – and so far only – meeting in Paris in December 2019, the Kremlin had lost faith in Zelensky’s ability to reintegrate Donetsk and Luhansk into Ukraine. Zelensky also continued to insist that Ukraine would join Nato. A different, far more radical course would be needed to keep wayward Ukraine in check, Putin decided. Russia was, from that moment, firmly on the path to war.
So Trump was factually correct when he said that Putin’s later full scale invasion could have been averted back in 2019. But he is wrong to suggest that this was Zelensky’s fault. On the contrary, Zelensky spent the early years of his presidency strenuously working to put the referendum plan together. And it was neither Putin nor the truculent rebels of the Donbas who derailed it but ultranationalists in Kyiv. The rest is history.
[END]
David Frost
The epoch of history-making men is back, but Europe is run by minnows. The post-war liberal project is breaking down, and the leaders of our continent have no answers
20 February 2025, The Telegraph
… Trump won the election, in part, with a promise to end the war. Perhaps some of his reasons are a bit murky, but others are wholly justifiable, above all the wish to focus on containing China. This is a task for which America bears near-sole responsibility, and to which Europeans will of course make no contribution whatsoever. So we should see in Trump’s words a crude message to Ukraine: “Do a deal now, the terms won’t get any better, and the Europeans won’t help you.” It’s realist international politics at its most brutal.
You can perfectly well think, as I do, that Ukraine is in the moral right and has suffered a great wrong. You can very much regret, as I do, that Putin seems likely to get something out of his aggression if a ceasefire does come soon.
You can think all of those things while also believing that the best outcome now is to end the war on the best available terms, to stop the killing, to get our own military house properly in order, and above all to remove the risk of escalation and nuclear confrontation about which many people have seemed remarkably casual.
The European alternative, which appears to be to insist the Americans continue to support the war until Ukraine is ready to settle or Russia collapses, is not a real alternative, because the Americans don’t want to do it, and because the Europeans have no power to fill the gap.
And that’s the core of the problem. Europe has no power because its societies, by and large, don’t think military power is important and very often don’t even think the nation is worth defending.
European elites are engaged in reality-avoidance, as the hysterical pearl-clutching reaction to J D Vance’s speech at the Munich smugfest last Friday demonstrates. They prefer posturing about principles from the moral high ground, an activity that is easy when you have such limited real power and don’t have to bear the consequences of the positions you take. Indeed one suspects that many Europeans will secretly be quite happy with an unsatisfactory ceasefire: they can blame the Americans in public while feeling private relief at getting back to spending on butter not guns and opening the Russian gas taps. …
[END]
My thanks to the Wall Street Journal, the Spectator, the Telegraph, and conservative Condorito
Dr Michael G. Heller
