President Biden, Sir Keir Starmer, and other Nato leaders are meeting in Germany today with the power to decide the fate of Ukraine and, by extension, Europe for perhaps the next decade.
At this critical juncture, there are three possible outcomes for this war. The worst-case scenario is that Russia prevails, which in my view would effectively lead to war with Nato, with Britain likely at the forefront, despite our under-resourced and neglected army. The best-case scenario is a ceasefire on Ukrainian terms, with Russia ceding all the territory it has illegally occupied, and Ukraine returning to its 2014 borders. Achieving this, however, requires Nato’s full commitment and total support for the Zelensky plan.
The third, and most likely outcome if the Zelensky plan is watered down or ignored, is a ceasefire on Russian terms, meaning the areas illegally occupied by Russia would be recognised as Russian. This, further to the horrific suffering of the people in those regions, would bring no lasting peace to Europe. In fact, Ukraine may follow through on what it perceives as a necessary threat to become a nuclear power again, raising the risk of a future nuclear conflict.
Western leaders, particularly Starmer, appear to have lost interest in Ukraine. I believe he is receiving poor advice from politically motivated SPADs and spin doctors who fail to grasp the military and strategic consequences of allowing Russia to succeed. Frankly, he could continue to flounder on issues like illegal immigration or tax the economy into stagnation, but if we end up fighting a tyrant in Europe once again, he will cast a shadow over this country for generations. No short-term domestic victories can outweigh the potential catastrophe of a war with Russia. Surely, Prime Minister, you understand this?
President Zelensky’s victory plan makes sense, and had Nato fully supported its principles before the 24th February 2022 invasion, Putin might not have attacked Ukraine. What is the point of Nato if it cannot defend Europe from Russian aggression? Is Ukraine not much more a part of Europe than it is of Russia?
So, what are the key elements of Zelensky’s victory plan? Firstly, Ukraine’s integration into Nato is essential for guaranteeing long-term peace. Russia would never dare attack Europe if this were the case. Ukraine serves as both a physical and psychological keystone for Nato’s security against Russia and would signal strength to China and other strategic threats. Even a combined force of Russia and China would be no match for this expanded Nato, provided the US remains its bedrock – without America, the balance tips towards the enemy.
Secondly, it is absurd not to allow Ukraine to use UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles to strike into Russia. I speak as a military strategist, not a political spin doctor – it’s obvious. Putin’s war machine could be paralysed if he were unable to use airfields within 200 miles of Ukraine’s borders to launch attacks on hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure. Surely, someone in Downing Street understands this and can explain it clearly to the Prime Minister?
Putin’s nuclear threats are a chimera and should be treated as such. His chemical weapons, however, pose a more serious threat, and he’s already using low-grade chemical agents on an industrial scale. If he were to employ Novichok, as in Salisbury, the consequences could be more devastating than a tactical nuclear strike. Yet I’ve heard no Western deterrent threats in response.
Australia is the only country making a bold gesture today, gifting 50 Leopard 1 tanks from storage. Meanwhile, we have at least 100 Challenger 2 tanks gathering dust in depots, which the Ukrainian army would gladly accept. This would be a powerful show of strength and solidarity. We know that Putin only respects strength and ruthlessly exploits weakness.
If we fail to fully support Zelensky’s plan, it will only embolden Putin, who sees most Western leaders as woke, weak, and incapable of making bold decisions – and, unfortunately, he’s probably right.
The fact that North Korea is sending 12,000 troops to fight for Russia in Ukraine suggests that Putin is desperate. As Russian conscripts dry up, he would rather send North Koreans into the meat grinder than the sons of Moscow’s and St Petersburg’s elites. No doubt, in return, Russia is providing North Korea with nuclear technology, which poses a serious threat to stability in the Far East. Russia is probably helping Iran with nuclear technology in exchange for missiles as well. Putin is vulnerable if we are bold enough to act – are Nato leaders paying attention?
With Putin’s apparent ally, Donald Trump, eyeing a return to the White House, now is the time to fully endorse the Zelensky plan – or prepare for war with Russia within the next year or so, potentially without US support.
Starmer should give this some serious thought. Is he going to be Chamberlain or Churchill?
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 3 months with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
