Yesterday, in advance
of Trump’s meeting with Putin later this week to redraw Ukraine’s boundaries, Sir
Starmer warned
the world that he wouldn’t trust Vladimir Putin “as far as you can throw
him”. It’s another of those rare occasions when Sir Starmer has spoken half
sensibly. Only half mind, because there is also a major question about the
trustworthiness of Trump. And looking at the two men, if it came to a distance
throwing contest, I reckon that most of us might be able to throw Putin a
millimetre or two further than Trump. It’s probably something to do with the
Big Mac consumption ratio.
And that’s the
problem with Sir Starmer’s statement backing Trump’s interventions over the
Ukraine war: neither of the two parties can be trusted. Putin’s motivation is
to get US recognition of his control over as much of Ukraine as possible; Trump’s
appears to be earning himself a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the bloodshed,
at least long enough for him to get to Oslo and collect it, regardless of
whether any peace is just or lasting. Most of Europe is saying that Ukraine
must be part of any agreement – the country must not simply be carved up
between Trump and Putin.
Sadly, the truth about
the world in which we live (rather then the one in which we might prefer to
live) is that two dictators, each heavily armed with the means to wipe us all
out, meeting in Alaska can and will carve up Ukraine and, come to that, any
other country that they choose (a side-deal on Greenland, maybe, as a quid pro
quo?), and no-one can stop them. Without US support, unless the rest of the
world – and particularly Europe – is willing to commit resources, including
military personnel, to the defence of Ukraine, then the ultimate outcome is
certain, with only the timescale in doubt. It’s not fair, it’s not right, it’s
not just, it’s not the sort of world most of us would want, but Trump is surely
right to say the cards are stacked against Ukraine. He should know – he’s the
one who stacked them.
For decades, we have
lived under the delusion that the world order is rules-based, but the US has
always had a shaky commitment, at best, to that concept, and has abandoned it
completely under Trump. The truth is that we live in a world where the powerful
can and do impose their will on those less strong than themselves – Trump has
merely shredded the pretence that things were otherwise. Might is right, in
practice if not in theory. With the US having gone rogue, the choice is between
telling Zelensky to fight to the last Ukrainian, or advising him to accept that
some territorial loss is the price of peace, and concentrating on getting back
the stolen children and rebuilding what’s left of Ukraine, with absolutely no
guarantee that Putin won’t try and grab more of the country in a few years
time. It’s not a pleasant choice, but not choosing the second means that Sir
Starmer is effectively choosing the first. Slathered in a good dose of
meaningless rhetoric about the evil Putin.
How we get to a
position where the world can get back to at least the pretence of having a
rules-based international order is a much bigger question, to which none of us
have the answer. But we can at least start by asking the question, something
which Sir Starmer seems unable to comprehend.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment