Britain, France, and Ukraine: Navigating the Path to Peace
In a bid to forge a peace plan to end the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, Britain and France are collaborating with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This initiative comes on the heels of a tumultuous summit between Zelenskyy and former U.S. President Donald Trump, which has left many questioning the viability of peace in the region. The announcement made by Keir Starmer, the leader of the UK Labour Party, raises critical concerns about the potential for a resolution amidst persistent Russian aggression and the ambiguous stance of the United States.
Is Peace Achievable in the Current Climate?
Despite both Ukraine and Russia expressing a desire to end hostilities, the two nations remain far from a mutual agreement. The Kremlin’s ambitions include not only the domination of Ukraine but also the annexation of significant territories and the prevention of Ukraine’s NATO membership. Conversely, Ukraine is fighting for its sovereignty and a secure future aligned with Western ideals. Sir Lawrence Freedman, an emeritus professor at King’s College London, succinctly summarizes the impasse: “What Russia wants, the US can’t deliver, and the Ukrainians won’t accept.”
While Ukraine has shown some willingness to consider a de facto partition along current front lines, the prevailing sentiment among Ukrainians is one of resistance to Russian influence. The desire for independence and the rejection of subjugation to Moscow are deeply ingrained in Ukrainian society, making any concessions difficult to swallow.
What Happens if the U.S. Abandons Ukraine?
The recent debacle at the White House has severely strained U.S.-Ukrainian relations, prompting fears that the U.S. might withdraw military support for Kyiv, which has been a cornerstone of Ukraine’s defense strategy. With nearly $4 billion in unallocated military aid still available from previous Biden administration approvals, there are indications that this support could be cut, further complicating Ukraine’s military situation.
Currently, U.S. military aid accounts for approximately 20% of the hardware used by Ukraine, a crucial percentage given that this equipment is among the most advanced and hardest to replace. Ukrainian defense officials have noted that while the country remains largely on the defensive, Russian advances have been slow and costly, suggesting that a halt in U.S. support could tip the scales in favor of Moscow.
Can Europe Plug the Gap in U.S. Military Support?
The prospect of Europe compensating for a potential U.S. withdrawal raises significant questions. Experts like Rachel Ellehuus, director general of the Royal United Services Institute, highlight that the U.S. plays a vital role in three key areas: air defense, long-range ballistic missiles, and satellite communications. European alternatives are limited, particularly in air defense systems like the Patriot, and the supply of advanced weaponry is constrained.
Financially, the U.S. has committed approximately $33.8 billion in arms and ammunition to Ukraine, with European military aid matching this figure at around €62 billion. To fully replace U.S. contributions, European nations would need to significantly increase their military spending, a daunting task that has led to discussions about utilizing Russia’s frozen assets to support Ukraine’s defense, though the legality of such actions remains uncertain.
Could Europe Guarantee a Peace in Ukraine Without the U.S.?
The idea of a European-led "reassurance force" to maintain peace in Ukraine has been floated, but this would necessitate a ceasefire, which seems unlikely given Russia’s opposition to NATO involvement. While European troops might operate in Ukraine, their safety would be jeopardized if Russia were to violate any truce. The lack of a U.S. backstop, particularly in terms of air support, complicates the feasibility of such a force.
Britain has been advocating for a U.S. commitment to support any stabilization efforts in Ukraine, but the recent interactions between Trump and Zelenskyy have cast doubt on the likelihood of securing such a guarantee. The U.S. president’s remarks, suggesting that Zelenskyy is "gambling with world war three," further illustrate the precariousness of the situation.
Where Does This Leave NATO and the Transatlantic Security Alliance?
The current geopolitical landscape indicates a significant shift in the transatlantic security framework. Under Trump’s presidency, the longstanding commitment to NATO and European security has come into question. The U.S. has historically provided a security umbrella for Europe, allowing nations to focus on economic development. However, with Trump’s uncertain stance on NATO and the potential withdrawal of U.S. troops from Europe, the future of the alliance is in jeopardy.
Experts like Ellehuus point out that the U.S. has increasingly prioritized domestic issues and challenges in the Pacific, particularly concerning China. This shift has left NATO allies grappling with the reality of a diminished U.S. role in European security. The question of NATO’s survival in this new context looms large, as the alliance must adapt to a landscape where U.S. support is no longer guaranteed.
