As attention focused on diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine this week, the UN human rights office published a powerful reminder of its horrors. A new report on children’s lives since the Russian invasion was prefaced with a nursery director’s description of their response to shelling: “Some children fall to their knees – their legs do not move because they are afraid. There are no tears, no crying or screaming, the child just freezes. One child stood there holding a toy and did not let go of it all day.”
These are the survivors. Hundreds of children have been killed since February 2022. Hundreds of thousands are internally displaced, and 1.7 million are refugees, many of them separated from a parent. At least 200 have been forcibly taken to Russia. Ukraine matters – not just strategically, but humanely.
The US decision to terminate a programme tracking these abducted children is a telling indication of supreme carelessness or callousness about the fate of Ukraine and its people. Vladimir Putin’s maximalist demands in his call with Donald Trump this week underlined that he does not desire peace. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, had previously observed that Ukraine’s agreement to a ceasefire put the onus on Russia: “If they say no, we’ll know what the impediment is to peace here.”
Mr Putin offered a halt on attacks on energy infrastructure if Kyiv did the same (a gesture rather than a concession, with the winter drawing to an end) while declaring that peace would require the complete cessation of foreign military aid and intelligence provision to Ukraine. The impediment is obvious. But Mr Trump has little grasp of detail, his “deal-making” prowess is self-declared, and he has long been drawn to Mr Putin.
Ukraine will at least be in Saudi Arabia for parallel talks when the US speaks to Russia next week. It has won a place at the table, or a table. But it is still on the menu. Even as Kyiv attempts to attract the US president with minerals, and avoid alienating him over issues such as his new desire to take over nuclear plants, Russia appears to be outflanking US negotiators. Moscow offers improved economic relations as if that was its gift and not its goal, and is aided by the US right’s fantasies that Mr Putin will turn his back on China. Bilateral relations are already thawing.
The security guarantee that Europe wanted has not materialised. If the US cuts off military aid and intelligence to Ukraine again, the consequences would be immense. But Washington can’t force Kyiv to accept a ceasefire – or force Europe to abandon Ukraine. European leaders have recognised that they may shape, but cannot determine, the actions of Mr Trump – but can decide how they respond. That is clear not only through this week’s discussions on a possible “reassurance force” in the event of a ceasefire, but more generally as Europe contemplates a future without US security assurances. Germany’s ditching of the debt brake to turbocharge military spending was only the headline.
Russia’s threat looms far larger for some than others. Domestic opinion and priorities vary widely. Strategically, leaders differ on whether to prioritise the building up of regional strength or shoring up transatlantic ties. They will differ too on where else to build partnerships. These questions are becoming more acute. The answers will shape the lives of coming generations well beyond Ukraine.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
