By Peter Longley
We are at a very dangerous time in the alignment of world powers all sparked by a relatively insignificant border struggle between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. But, remember, it was the relatively insignificant assassination of an Austrian Archduke in the Balkans that started the First World War, and it can be said that the Second World War was the inevitable result of the inconclusive bungling of peace talks to end the first. These wars and others during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have seen the slaughter of millions of innocent civilians. In terms of modern warfare, however, it is civilians that end up suffering the most. In terms of the Geneva conventions we may shout about war crimes, but there is in the perceived reality no such thing as a war crime—the crime is war.
The current conflict in Ukraine did not start with the Russian invasion on 24 February 2022, anymore than the Israel-Gaza war started on 7 October 2023, but which actually started with the continuous establishment of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank from 1966 to the present day, destroying any viable two-state solution to the Jewish-Palestinian struggle.
At the outset, let me clearly say that Vladimir Putin is a despicable dictator who is prepared to murder millions to achieve his goals. To this end, he is very little different to his forebear, Joseph Stalin. But without Joseph Stalin, it is probable that neither the Americans nor the British would have defeated the Nazi Third Reich. After the Battle of Britain, when we stood alone, Stalingrad, was the turning point of World War II, more than El Alamein, D-Day or Monte Cassino, important though they became in securing the allied victory.
Today, two leaders face off against each other in Ukraine. Putin is a devious, ruthless, but smart man who knows what he wants and how to get it, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a brave but rather stupid man who is playing with the future of the Western world. They are Goliath and David, but Zelenskyy does not have the cunning or acumen of David.
Rather simplistically, let us start in 1991, when the Socialist Republic of Ukraine gained independence from the USSR as it collapsed. It would have made sense at that time for the Socialist Republic to have been divided into an East and West Ukraine, probably divided by the Dneiper. Most of East Ukraine would then have been the culturally and ethnically Russian half. Although Odessa is also culturally and ethnically of Russian background, it would have fallen in West Ukraine. This is significant as West Ukraine, one of the breadbaskets of our world, would have needed a major port on the Black Sea. It would have been catastrophic for West Ukraine to have existed without Odessa, and that applies to this day—West Ukraine would have been landlocked. West Ukraine would have lost her ports on the Sea of Azov and in Crimea to East Ukraine. But because Ukraine remained pro-Russian, this division never came about. Yeltsin, the Russian leader, saw the Kiev government as it was then, as its ally.
Next, we must move on to the Ukrainian civil war which really started as far back as 2006 in the Donbas with Russian separatists seeking independence from Kiev as was already the case in Crimea. They wanted, like Crimea to be autonomous regions of Ukraine. This was a result of the Orange revolution of 2004-2005. Towards the end of 2004, Ukrainians peacefully and joyfully rose up against the discredited regime of President Leonid Kuchma following a disputed presidential election narrowly won by then Prime-Minister Viktor Yanukovich with pro-Russian sympathies. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians then poured into the streets of Ukraine’s capital to reject the claim that the government-backed candidate, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, had won the presidential election run-off.
Ukrainians gathered en masse to insist that Viktor Yushchenko, the internationally recognised winner of the poll, be allowed to fulfill his mandate. With Western and NATO sympathy, Kiev turned orange, as citizens of all backgrounds adopted Yushchenko’s campaign color as their own. After days of loud but orderly protest, the newly emboldened Supreme Court ordered a repeat of the presidential run-off. Less than two weeks later, Yushchenko celebrated his victory in that poll. In one month, the Ukrainian people had reset their country’s political and geographical orientation and had demonstrated their support for freedom, democracy and truth. The power of the people had triumphed.
According to the words of the newly elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, in his inaugural address to the Ukrainian people on Independence Square, he said that he was ‘very happy that our beautiful revolution made so many people happy. We have chosen freedom, since tyranny must not rule over the successors of the Cossack Republic where as long as three hundred years ago the first constitution in Europe was written. We have chosen for independence, as we are the descendants of those generations that were dreaming of a Ukrainian state for centuries and courageously fought for their freedom. We turn over a new page in Ukrainian history. It will be wonderful. It will tell about our unity, courage and our determination to support each other. And the Maidan figures out in our history. Here, we will gain our strength and share our joy. This square, (the Maidan), is a symbol of a free nation that believes in its power and creates its future on its own. And the national blue and yellow flag will always fly over us. The National Anthem will sound with millions of voices. All our dreams will come true. Believe in Ukraine, love Ukraine, serve Ukraine!’
It is significant to note that a member of the Ukrainian parliament, who had supported Viktor Yanukovich’s claims, was murdered just this past week in Lyvid. Whether Putin’s Russia was involved in this or not we don’t know, but we do know that Putin gave shelter to Viktor Yanukovich in Moscow where Yanukovich is now living. Putin naturally regards him still as the legitimate President of Ukraine pushed out by the Orange Revolution in 2005.
Next we must come to Crimea. Crimea was first established as an autonomous region within Ukraine on February 12, 1991, when the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Union restored its status as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic following a state-sanctioned referendum. After Ukraine declared independence later in 1991, the region continued to be part of Ukraine with its autonomous status, although it was then called the Republic of Crimea and later renamed the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in 1994. Twenty years later, in 2014, after the separatist states of the Ukrainian Civil War in the Donbas—the Luhansk and Donetsk—held referendums on independence from Kyiv (the Russian language now banned and Kiev becoming the Ukrainian Kyiv), Crimea also held a referendum. The result was 93% favouring total independence from Kyiv and welcome absorption into the Russian federation. Russia then moved into the Crimea without firing a shot. Later, the figure for the referendum result was greatly revised down to 65%, but still a very good majority. The Western world, however, refused to recognise this and called it the invasion of the Crimea by President Putin. It was not surprising, therefore, that Putin then set his sights on protecting the Donbas by sending in Russian advisors and a few troops into the two new states of the Donbas. Again, the Western world did not recognise the two new independent states and supported the new western democracy of Ukraine in the Kyiv government in that civil war. With the continuation of the civil war, now with Russia involved, attempts at Minsk to bring the civil war to a close failed, both Russia and Ukraine breaking their agreements.
At the start of January 2015, Russia sent another large batch of its regular military, which together with separatist forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic began a new offensive on Ukrainian-controlled areas in the Donbas, resulting in the complete collapse of the Minsk Protocol ceasefire.
Ukraine also formally terminated its 1997 Treaty of Friendship with Russia in 2019, citing Russia’s material breach of the treaty through military aggression as justification. Russia, in turn, was accused of breaking its commitments in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in exchange for its nuclear weapons.
Now, the Western world started to watch what was happening in Ukraine. Could this lead to a new European War and what then would be the role of NATO?
Although the Americans, way the biggest contributors to NATO, drew a red line on bringing Ukraine into NATO, they also demanded that Europe should fund more of the NATO alliance themselves.
The nature of Ukraine’s democracy was somewhat in question too, as Presidential powers under Poroshenko and then under Volodymr Zelenskyy became more autocratic. Under Poroshenko there was also a lot of corruption within the democracy. Volodymyr Zelenskyy thus came to the presidency in 2019 on a populist vote to clean up Ukraine’s democracy. It helped that he came from an entertainment background rather than a political background.
All of this would have made the bully Vladimir Putin see Zelenskyy as weak. It is not surprising, therefore, that Putin in 2022, started to mass troops on the borders between pro-Russian Belarus and Ukraine waiting for the moment to pounce. Personally, I believe this was sabre rattling and at that time, Putin was genuine in his statements that he would not invade Ukraine. He was simply threatening Ukraine with his perception of Zelenskyy as a pushover, believing that the Ukrainian president would acquiesce to ceding him the Donbas and Crimea, thus ending the civil war, and resign. For Putin, ex-President Viktor Yanukovich was waiting in the wings in Moscow to be his puppet in Kyiv. It seemed at that time, too, that President Macron of France felt the same way, and that their main motive was to bring an end to the civil war in southeast Ukraine. Zelenskyy would not come to the table, however. This frustrated Putin and eventually invasion seemed the best way to get rid of Zelenskyy. Thus on 24 February 2022, Russia started their invasion of Ukraine from the north with a straight run down to Kyiv the capital.
Might is not always right, however. Putin totally underestimated the determination of Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian armed forces to stand up to his troops. The Russian army, far superior to Ukraine’s, was also under appalling leadership, and in what should have been an easy conquest of Kyiv totally failed with enormous loss to Russia and Putin’s pride leading to their retreat to the north in short order. Of course, this buoyed up Zelenskyy and in my opinion unwisely, Boris Johnson, who ran to Zelenskyy’s aid as if Britain could still police the world. The Europeans were sensibly a lot more cautious. Ukraine is not a member of NATO.
Despite these early successes, the Russia-Ukraine War then disintegrated into a slogging match with enormous losses both civilian and military on both sides in the Donbas, Zaporizhia and Kherson. It was obvious that eventually Zelenskyy was going to lose without substantial western help. In dribs and drabs it came, but mostly from the USA.
It was pretty much a stalemate until Donald Trump was elected President of the USA in 2024. Now, Putin had met his match—two ruthless men who don’t mind whom they walk over, but both with immense power. Whether for personal gain or genuine desire, Trump begins a serious peace initiative to end the Russia-Ukraine war. As an isolationist he claimed that the USA should not be directly involved any more in other people’s proxy wars.
Both these giants in today’s world are smart, even though ruthless, they don’t care who they tread on to get what they want. They both belittle Zelenskyy as a little man on the big men’s stage and in many ways they are right. Zelenskyy is a brave little man, who walks on the big stage trying to get everyone in the Western world to fight his war with Putin. The British under Sir Keir Starmer and the French under President Macron are leading a rather feeble coalition of the willing that in the populist vote I would probably deem the ‘unwiling’ to support Zelenskyy and Ukraine. In reality, however, it is Trump and Putin who ultimately will call the shots. Zelenskyy draws endless red lines in his confrontation with Putin, of which the most absurd is that he will not concede any Ukrainian land seized by Russia. Russia has, with enormous loss on both sides, secured about one fifth of Ukraine as his—the originally culturally and linguistically Russian fifth of Ukraine—Crimea, much of Kherson and Zaporizhia, and most of Luhansk and Donetsk. What wartime leader with victory in his sights is going to give up such territory, however it has been won? It is the ‘Catherine the Great Corridor’ from Russia to Crimea. Trump at least realises and accepts that as a fait accompli.
Although it shocked diplomatic decency when Trump belittled Zelenskyy at the White House early this year, Trump was not wrong when he said, ‘You do not hold the cards, and if you are not careful you will lose your country or lead us all into World War Three.’ Trump does not want to be led by this little man into World War Three. He would rather deal with Putin direct as he did in Alaska. We don’t know everything they discussed in Alaska, but it seemed that the gist centered on Putin’s suggestion that Ukraine should cede all of the Donbas to Russia in exchange for peace along the current front line. It is not without note that such an agreement would give to Putin a significant part of the mineral deal that Trump had already extorted from Zelenskyy, and thus Putin gained Trump’s support for this approach.
To appease Zelenskyy, however, Trump assured some sort of Western guarantees to uphold the peace in Ukraine. This would seem to be something along the lines of American help in rebuilding Ukraine, providing some military training and weaponry and some reconnaissance and air-defence, but no American boots on the ground. That would be left to the British and Europeans. In short, no direct involvement of NATO, but an American and European presence as NATO in disguise. It will be hard to get Putin to accept this, but the bargain chip of the whole Donbas might be enough. So, where are we? It really all comes back to Zelenskyy.
To get Zelenskyy to the table with Putin and Trump, Zelenskyy has to give up on his territorial red lines. Naturally, brute as he is, Putin is pasting Ukraine with horrific attacks to try to get Zelenskyy to give up on his red lines. In time, dreadful as it is to have to say it, the tactic may work, but at a huge cost to the civilian population. Maybe, Putin still hopes that the civilian population will turn against Zelenskyy for the sake of peace. It worked with Truman and two Atomic bombs at the end of World WarTwo—Japan sued for peace. If Putin cannot bully Zelenskyy to the table, this war will drag on interminably, bringing Europe and America ever more into its fold. Forgive me for saying it, but the next move in this game of chess is with the underdog, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Putin has him in ‘check’, if he is able to keep moving out of ‘check’ until one of his remaining pawns – western democracies — becomes a new queen, it will be World War Three. Better for him to fall on his sword and accept ‘check mate’. Which is worse, and how many more millions will die? The killing must stop.
The sad thing is, if Zelenskyy had come to the table before the Russian invasion in 2022, even sacrificed his political career in doing so, he could have saved millions of lives. Sometimes, the bully has to win for peace, and peace then, would probably have cost Ukraine less loss of land than is likely now.
Peace is complicated. Zelenskyy knows he’s going to have to give up on his red line. Putin has won the ‘Catherine Corridor’, but I believe I know where Trump is coming from, there will be swaps. Polansk may fall before this is over, but that little bit Zelenskyy still holds in Kursk might be swapped with the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia. Russia will build new nuclear power plants for the ‘Catherine Corridor’, so let Zelenskyy have that. Polansk because it is such an important communications hub might be swapped to Russia for some of the northern fringes of the Donbas. Trump is no fool. He already has that signed deal with Zelenskyy gaining him rights to their lithium and rare earths in the Donbas, so he is banking on being able to make a deal with Putin for a continuation of such when New Russia is re-formed. That’s why he wants to give some rights to Putin for the riches of Alaska.
Putin will have to withdraw some of his red lines too. For Zelenskyy, NATO should not be off the table but some way off. I think probably membership of the European Union should come first, and definite guarantees from the Americans that they will defend the port of Odesa. That’s really the most important thing of all. Russia would have the Sea of Azov ports and Sevastopol in the Crimea all with Black Sea access, but Kyiv and Western Ukraine must be allowed guaranteed access to Odesa and possibly the Dneiper too. I believe Odesa should be an American guarantee… the Dneiper… possibly a British and French guarantee. I am not sure that Zelenskyy can count on the Germans, but they and the Poles might be involved, especially if West Ukraine gets EU status. Most of the other members of the coalition of the willing are unlikely to give more than the use of some of their bases for American, British, French and German use.
If you want my prediction… when all this blows over and in a post-Putin world, I think the Russian Federation will crawl back to Europe. They are not really part of the Chinese sphere of influence or BRICS even though Putin has flirted with them in the current crisis out of necessity. I believe eventually we’ll all be in the European Union together as a counterweight to BRICS and this will all just be a horrific memory that as Trump has correctly said, ‘Should never have happened.’