When things started to go badly awry in the Oval Office last Friday, Donald Trump was asked by a reporter what would happen if Russia broke the peace agreement.
Increasingly frustrated at the resistance of Volodymyr Zelensky to the unconditional surrender of his country, the president of the United States of America expostulated: “What if anything? What if a bomb drops on your head right now?” After a short “Trump weave” invoking Hunter Biden, he concluded that the Russians would not dare to invade because “they respect me”.
Although he was not rude enough to query that, Mr Zelensky plainly does not think the mere existence of the US president offers long-term stability – and, after all, even Mr Trump is not immortal.
The “minerals deal”, with American personnel on the ground, adds some protection – but it will take years to become a reality. Even then, there’s nothing to stop the Russians advising foreign nationals to leave as they launch an attack. Mr Trump is in the bizarre position of offering up American mining engineers and business executives as human shields for Kyiv – except that they can fly home before the trouble really starts.
The Ukrainian president is right to regard that as a flimsy basis for defending his people – thus the “what if” question persists. It is emerging as the major immediate obstacle to a swift move to peace. It is the focus of attention for Sir Keir Starmer, who has successfully positioned himself as the “bridge” between Washington and Europe, a fabled diplomatic prize.
The “right” answer to the “what if” question is the one that Sir Keir has given – the Russians have to be deterred and, if needs be, repulsed by a sufficiently strong security guarantee backed by armed strength. That is, or should be, the meaning of the fashionable slogan “peace through strength”.
That deterrent, as proposed by the “coalition of the willing” being assembled by Sir Keir and French president Emmanuel Macron, has two components: a physical European-led force in Ukraine, doing the “heavy lifting” as the prime minister puts it, but with an American “backstop” – a pledge to protect British and other forces. It is only with such reassurances that the Ukrainian government and people can be asked to even contemplate giving up parts of their homeland.
In the Commons, the prime minister was once again perfectly and rightly clear that Ukraine must, in effect, have a veto in this process: "Any lasting peace must guarantee the sovereignty and security of Ukraine and Ukraine must be at the table when negotiating their future,” he said – while also describing Russia as “a menace in our waters and skies”.
What Mr Trump refuses to contemplate – but Sir Keir and European allies insist on – is that Ukraine must maintain the right to defend its right to exist. It is that willingness to fight on and deny Russia that gives Mr Zelensky much needed leverage in any settlement talks.
Mr Trump is plainly keen to turn Russia from an adversary into a partner, perhaps with an eye to China; but he cannot do so until the Ukraine situation is settled. That actually places Ukraine and Europe in a remarkably strong position.
That is the background to the British position and, furthermore, is reflected in the multilateral peace proposal framed at the London summit over the weekend.
It is the essential corrective to the intense pressure from the White House for an immediate unconditional cessation of hostilities on the part of Ukraine – with no guarantee that the offer would be reciprocated by Russia or honoured in its implementation.
The risk, clearly spotted by Mr Zelensky, is that the present line of hostilities becomes the ceasefire line: and then a permanent de facto border, frozen for decades to come, as with the DMZ in Korea – the product of a “temporary” armistice in 1953.
Without the deterrence that flows from a security guarantee, there would be nothing to prevent Vladimir Putin or a successor launching a third – and possibly final – invasion of Ukraine.
When President Trump berated Mr Zelensky about gambling with world war three, he was not only regurgitating yet another Kremlin “talking point”, but wilfully misunderstanding the concept of deterrence. It is the doctrine of mutually assured destruction that prevents war, and weakness that encourages aggression – as the sad recent history of Ukraine proves.
The suggestion by President Macron that President Zelensky could show willing by agreeing now to cease fighting for a month is, in that context, unhelpful. So is the supposition being put around, on an apparently freelance basis, by Peter Mandelson that a European guarantee might be sufficient deterrent – and that Mr Zelensky should sign up to an unconditional ceasefire on a unilateral basis to shame President Putin to come to the negotiating table.
It might well encourage the Russians to attend a summit with Mr Trump at which the Ukrainian ceasefire is offered up – but it would not yield any concessions from the Russian leader. He can carry on fighting, knowing that the Americans won’t do anything to help the Ukrainians survive. The Russian offensives would grind on.
The “what if” in such circumstances is that America would do nothing. The Europeans might not either without that backstop – and Ukraine could perish as a nation. A disaster for Europe, but not, as far as can be judged, something that would trouble Mr Trump unduly, minerals deal or not (and President Putin is offering a parallel minerals deal anyway).
Everyone wants peace, but the dividing line is between those who want peace at any price – and those who seek a durable peace with honour.
Anyone can secure an end to any conflict by simply surrendering – but it does not constitute a peace worthy of the name. It seems inevitable – even if morally abhorrent – that Ukraine will be dismembered again by greater powers than itself; but in return it has to be sure of its future survival.
Ukraine seems unlikely to get the peace it needs and deserves. The task ahead for Sir Keir is to salvage what he can and ensure the extent of this historic betrayal is minimised.
