On Apr 25, 2025, at 1:17 PM, Chas Freeman via Salon <salon@listserve.com> wrote:
----FM: John Whitbeck
The NEW YORK TIMES report transmitted below is worth reading alongside the article by Anatol Lieven (https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-ukraine-peace-plane) which I circulated earlier today.
It suggests that the "thinking" of European "leaders" regarding Ukraine is characterized by a high degree of historical amnesia.
The article states: "At stake, European officials and analysts say, is the key principle of European security for more than 50 years -- that international borders, however they were drawn after the end of World War II, should not be changed by force."
Kosovo?
Does no one remember Kosovo?
In 1999, in a blatantly illegal war of aggression launched a few weeks before NATO's 50th birthday party in Washington in order to show that NATO still had a reason to exist after the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, its original raison d'être, had ceased to exist, NATO countries bombed Serbia for 78 days in order to change by force the borders of Serbia by severing Kosovo from it, a "success" which set an appalling precedent for a series of other Western wars of aggression in the Greater Middle East until, in 2022, exceptionally, a non-Western country followed the Western precedent and example.
The article also refers to "Russia's annexation of Crimea by force" and "the Russian annexation of Crimea by force".
No force was necessary, and the reintegration of Crimea into the Russian Federation (its transfer from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev having been decreed without consulting the Russian-majority population of Crimea) was achieved without bloodshed.
At the time of the Western-supported 2014 coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government, Russian military forces stationed in Crimea pursuant to the treaty governing Russia's Sevastopol naval base (Russia's sole warm-water naval base since the time of Catherine the Great) already outnumbered the Ukrainian military forces stationed in Crimea. The Russian forces simply surrounded the Ukrainian forces in their bases and offered buses to transport them out of Crimea, an offer which the unresisting Ukrainian forces accepted.
A peaceful independence referendum (not the first referendum by which the majority of Crimea's population had sought to separate from Ukraine) followed, and the newly declared Republic of Crimea's application to be reintegrated into the Russian Federation was, unsurprisingly, accepted.
While Western media regularly refer to the reintegration of Crimea into the Russian Federation as "illegal", and while it no doubt was illegal under Ukrainian law, in light of the International Court of Justice's 2010 decision in the Kosovo case, it did not violate international law.
The article is, however, accurate in making clear that Western "support for Ukraine" is intended to serve perceived Western interests, not to serve the genuine interests of the Ukrainian people. It states: "An important core of large European countries ... [e]ven if they cannot realistically help Ukraine drive out the Russians ... want to ensure that Ukraine can continue to bleed Russia, which has spent the past six months capturing a few villages at the price of scores of thousands of troops."
On February 24, 2022, the day that Russia launched its "Special Military Operation", I wrote: "Personally, I believe that virtual champagne corks must now be popping in the State Department, the Pentagon and NATO headquarters in Brussels.... Sacrificing the Ukrainian people, who were told in advance that they were on their own and strongly urged to stand firm and make no concessions, in the interests of preserving U.S./NATO amour propre was clearly not a problem. The U.S. government has no more genuine concern for the interests and wellbeing of the Ukrainian people than it has had or has for the interests and wellbeing of the peoples of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria or any of the other countries targeted for American regime-change efforts. Such lesser peoples are simply pieces on the great game-board of full-spectrum global dominance."
So it was for the United States throughout the Biden administration, and so it appears to continue to be for most European "leaders".
NOTE (1): While this article notes the fact that Russia "has spent the past six months capturing a few villages at the price of scores of thousands of troops," European leaders profess to believe that Russia's performance in this war evidences that Russia has both an incentive and the capacity to attack their own countries, requiring a massive increase in their own military spending. How any rational mind could simultaneously both be aware of this fact and hold this belief is incomprehensible (https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/02/27/has-the-world-gone-mad).
NOTE (2): This article also notes that yesterday's Russian attack on Kyiv "was the deadliest to hit the capital since last summer" and caused President Trump to call upon President Putin to "STOP!" The attack killed 12 people. Yesterday's Israeli attacks on Gaza killed at least 59 people, although precise numbers were difficult to determine since the bombs used were so powerful that there were more body parts than identifiable bodies to collect. So far as I am aware, neither President Trump nor any European "leader" has called upon Prime Minister Netanyahu to STOP!
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/world/europe/europe-ukraine-russia-trump.html
If America Walks Away From Ukraine, What Will Europe Do?
Europeans see Ukraine’s security as vital to their own and want to defend the principle of no border changes by force, even if President Trump does not.
A residential building that was severely damaged by a Russian missile strike on Thursday in Kyiv, Ukraine.Credit...Brendan Hoffman for The New York TimesSteven Erlanger has written about Ukraine, Russia and European diplomacy for many years. He reported from Warsaw and Berlin.
April 24, 2025European allies of the United States have been trying to convince President Trump of the virtues of a shared approach toward ending the war in Ukraine, to enhance leverage on both Moscow and Kyiv and to preserve European security.
But Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance insisted on Wednesday that a set of proposals that their administration presented to the Europeans and Ukraine last week was now a kind of ultimatum, with the United States increasingly prepared to walk away. European officials who saw those proposals as too favorable to Russia and President Vladimir V. Putin face a dilemma.
If Mr. Trump sees Ukraine as just another crisis to fix or not, an obstacle toward a normalized diplomatic and business relationship with Mr. Putin, Europeans see the future of Ukraine as fundamental. At stake, European officials and analysts say, is the key principle of European security for more than 50 years — that international borders, however they were drawn after the end of World War II, should not be changed by force.
And those countries say they are prepared to keep supporting Ukraine should the Americans walk away.
Mr. Trump’s frustration was evident on Thursday, after the latest Russian attack on Kyiv overnight, the deadliest to hit the capital since last summer. “Vladimir, STOP!” Mr. Trump said in a post on social media. Few in Europe or Ukraine expect Mr. Putin to stop.
“My sense is that Europe understands the stakes, and that Europe will continue to support the Ukrainian government,” Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski of Poland said in an interview. “And Poland certainly will, and we’re not the only ones.”
Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski of Poland estimates that the war has cost Russia at least $200 billion and killed or injured almost a million Russian soldiers. Credit...Omar Havana/Getty ImagesAn important core of large European countries — Poland, Germany, France, Britain, the Nordic nations and the Baltic nations — all see the security of Ukraine as vital to their own and say they are prepared to continue to aid Kyiv. Even if they cannot realistically help Ukraine drive out the Russians, they want to ensure that Ukraine can keep what it has and can continue to bleed Russia, which has spent the past six months capturing a few villages at the price of scores of thousands of troops.
Mr. Sikorski cited estimates that the war has cost Russia at least $200 billion and killed or injured almost a million Russian soldiers.
“That’s not my definition of victory,” he said.
The Americans provide some key elements to Ukraine, like intelligence, air defense and satellite coverage, which Europeans hope Mr. Trump will continue even if American financial support stops. Yet while “intelligence sharing is important,” Mr. Sikorski said, “that’s not a strong enough card to dictate a capitulation to Ukraine.”
Mr. Trump argues that realism requires Ukraine to give up territory.
“Most European leaders agree on the need for some sort of territorial compromise, but not one foisted on themselves and the Ukrainians,” said Camille Grand, a former senior NATO official who leads defense studies at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The goal is to enable Kyiv to negotiate for itself an acceptable end to the war, with sufficient security assistance and assurances to deter Russia into the future, ideally with American financial and military help, though without it if necessary.
In the current American framework deal, Europe and Ukraine object especially to the proposal to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea by force. That idea is unacceptable even to Russia’s ally, China, which has refused to recognize Russia’s annexation.
A military chaplain performing an Easter benediction on Sunday next to the charred remnants of a church in the Kharkiv region of Ukraine.Credit...Tyler Hicks/The New York Times“It’s quite shocking to Europeans that the U.S. would walk away since it has been so fundamental in solidifying European borders and security, and that drives a lot of the concern among Europeans about what comes next,” Mr. Grand said.
The proposed American framework “essentially hands Russia a victory it cannot achieve on the battlefield,” said Fabian Zuleeg, chief executive of the European Policy Center in Brussels. “It’s an alignment with Russia, a betrayal of Ukraine and of our security.”
To recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea by force, Mr. Zuleeg said, is “a negation of the principles of European peace and puts into question the whole European security architecture since World War II.”
The European effort to convince Mr. Trump that it is Mr. Putin who stands in the way of a deal, and not President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, appears to have failed, the analysts say. Mr. Trump may indeed decide to give up on the whole problem, as he did with North Korea in his first term when the deal he had envisaged proved impossible.
Mr. Trump is correct that Ukraine is more important to Europe than to the United States, Mr. Sikorski said. “But one of our neighbors has invaded another of our neighbors, and therefore we are prepared to invest proportionally more resources, as we have been doing.”
The amount of money Ukraine requires is not enormous given Europe’s wealth — perhaps 50 billion to 60 billion euros a year (some $57 billion to $68 billion) for financial and military aid, while Europe is already intending to provide €40 billion this year.
Still, despite a critical mass of large countries — presumably including Germany under its new conservative chancellor — Europeans are divided in terms of practical aid to Ukraine, with some countries like Italy expressing solidarity with Kyiv but not providing much money. Some countries like France and Britain are willing to risk more for Ukraine, proposing sending European troops to provide security assurances, but may have less money to spend than Poland, say, or Germany.
And Hungary and Slovakia have little sympathy for Kyiv and essentially align themselves with Moscow.
Mr. Zuleeg is relatively optimistic. “The major powers in Europe understand the stakes for their security,” he said. And Mr. Trump has prompted new European overtures to post-Brexit Britain, to Norway and to Turkey.
“The recognition is there, unfortunately, that Trump’s actions only benefit the opponents of liberal democracy and European security,” Mr. Zuleeg said. “Countries understand that they must step in wherever they can.”
Steven Erlanger is the chief diplomatic correspondent in Europe and is based in Berlin. He has reported from over 120 countries, including Thailand, France, Israel, Germany and the former Soviet Union.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Whitbeck Blog" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to whitbeck-blog+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/whitbeck-blog/bfe28431-6fb3-4cb8-92fe-154c7aa963ee%40gmail.com.
Salon mailing list
Salon@listserve.com
https://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/listinfo/salon