The Political Landscape of the Russia-Ukraine War
“How many divisions has the Pope?” This sardonic question, attributed to Stalin during a 1943 summit with Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt in Tehran, reflects a deeper skepticism about the influence of the Vatican. Today, a similar inquiry could be raised in both Washington and Moscow regarding the political and military clout of the 18 world leaders who convened in London this past Sunday under the auspices of Sir Keir Starmer. Their aim was to navigate what may very well be the concluding phases of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war.
Starmer emphasized that this moment calls for decisive action rather than mere rhetoric in support of Ukraine, especially in light of the recent public spat between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former President Donald Trump, which led to Zelensky’s embarrassing ousting from the White House. Despite the warm embraces and commitments of solidarity extended to Zelensky by his allies in London, he would be wise to temper his expectations regarding the extent to which grand European proclamations can substitute for robust American backing.
Starmer has advocated for the formation of a “coalition of the willing” to potentially function as a “peacekeeping” force in Ukraine, contingent upon receiving assurances of American military support. However, given that Russia has consistently rejected the idea of NATO troops being deployed in Ukraine as part of any peace negotiations, and considering Trump’s recent refusal to guarantee American air support, Starmer’s proposal may be rather unrealistic. Much like the broader dynamics of the London meeting, this initiative seems more aimed at positioning the UK, France, and other European nations as significant stakeholders in the Ukraine crisis rather than yielding practical solutions. Such aspirations are relatively innocuous, provided that the beleaguered Ukrainians do not misinterpret them as credible alternatives.
The invocation of the term “coalition of the willing” is particularly concerning, harking back to its original use over two decades ago to describe the nations (notably the UK, though notably excluding France and Germany) that allied with President George W. Bush during the ill-fated US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. That endeavor quickly devolved into a chaotic and perilous situation from which those involved struggled for years to extricate themselves. A similar pattern unfolded in Afghanistan following the Taliban’s ousting in 2001. The fact that Starmer is willing to resurrect such a coalition, even if only as a rhetorical flourish, raises questions about his awareness of the lessons learned from past British military interventions—or whether he is simply willing to overlook them.
While it is reasonable for European nations to enhance their support for Ukraine through increased financial aid and military supplies, it is crucial that no one in Kyiv harbors illusions that this will empower them to categorically reject a deal brokered by the US and Russia.
This tendency to posture regarding Ukraine is not unique to the UK; it is a phenomenon observed across much of Europe. For instance, French President Emmanuel Macron has put forth a proposal for a limited one-month truce between Russia and Ukraine. However, one of Moscow’s primary strategies is to continue negotiating while waging a protracted conflict that is gradually, if not decisively, shifting in its favor. Ukraine has expressed doubts about a temporary ceasefire, fearing it would grant the Russians an opportunity to regroup and rearm, even though there is currently little evidence to suggest that they require such a respite.
A significant challenge for Starmer’s “peace plan” lies in the fact that his proposals for any long-term resolution appear to overlook the fundamental demands of Russia. As Trump pointed out during a contentious exchange with Zelensky last Friday, it is easy to hurl insults at President Vladimir Putin, but such rhetoric does little to facilitate constructive negotiations.
Given that Putin’s primary demands—namely, a neutral Ukraine (reminiscent of Austria and Finland during Soviet times), the retention of Crimea and Donbas, and limits on Ukrainian military capabilities—are unlikely to be met, it is reasonable to anticipate that negotiations will be protracted and fraught with uncertainty, subject to the vagaries of battlefield developments.
Starmer’s enjoyment of the role of mediator—a trait shared with Tony Blair and most British prime ministers over the last century—stands in stark contrast to the disposition of Trump, who is arguably the least receptive US president to diplomatic overtures. During the infamous confrontation with Zelensky, Trump asserted his belief that he alone could broker a deal with Russia, a conviction he likely holds fervently.
Starmer’s recent grandstanding speeches are rife with contradictions, although it could be argued that other European leaders, such as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who has expressed a desire to transform Ukraine into a formidable military power, have not fared any better. Starmer insists that there is no rift between the US and Europe, despite the yawning gap that prompted the London meeting. He claims the UK is in “lockstep” with the US, labeling it “a reliable ally,” even as Trump pursues a distinctly different approach toward Ukraine and Russia than that of America’s European partners.
The lesson gleaned from Starmer’s and Macron’s visits to the White House last week—publicly hailed by both and their domestic media as triumphs of diplomatic finesse—is that they had little to no impact on Trump. Their display of flattery and deference was so excessive that it might have seemed almost comical if not for its seriousness. The stark contrast between their aspirations and the immediate response from Trump and Vice President JD Vance, who launched into a blistering attack on Zelensky, serves as shocking proof of the negligible weight their perspectives carry with the current US administration. It remains uncertain whether Trump seeks to remove Zelensky from power or simply wishes to rein him in.
In the realm of international summits, it is common for participants to exaggerate their accomplishments. However, if Ukrainian leaders take the solemn assurances of European support too literally, they may be courting a potentially catastrophic miscalculation. While Trump may be a controversial figure, his proposed peace deal—if and when it materializes—could be the only viable option on the table.
