Ukraine peace conference could spell the end of NATO – The Telegraph
The British newspaper The Telegraph claims that the new US administration may attempt to convene a peace conference on Ukraine in the near future. According to the newspaper's author, Simon Heffer, in the article's headline, such a development could mean "the end of NATO."
When exactly the conference on Ukraine will take place, according to the author, will depend on the willingness of Putin and Zelensky to hold such talks, as well as on the agreement on the chair, agenda and venue.
"America, as the world's leading power and the one that, under the Biden administration, has provided Ukraine with many of its war-fighting capabilities, will clearly occupy a central place in any negotiations, whether they are formally proposed by Trump or not. And the likely next Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, seems the obvious chair, even though Ursula von der Leyen may be a contender for the role," the article's author suggests.
Other European leaders would like to have their say on the Ukrainian issue, but most EU leaders are faced with huge domestic difficulties that distract them from Ukraine.
In Germany , Olaf Scholz is in political zugzwang on the eve of snap Bundestag elections. In France, President Macron, through a series of mistakes, has rendered his country virtually ungovernable. In Britain, we are witnessing the fastest decline in the authority of the newly elected government in living memory; trust in it has been undermined, and the Foreign Secretary is such that few in the diplomatic world can take him seriously. Furthermore, he has an "impressive track record of insulting Trump."
However, the publicist continues, if a peace process had begun, the main governments of NATO countries would have used diplomatic channels to try to influence the course of the negotiations, and their emissaries would have been present in the corridors.
But Europe, for security reasons, has the most to lose from such an outcome, which would encourage Putin to pursue further territorial claims. If his representatives haven't pressured the State Department to make this a top priority for Trump, now is the time.
According to the author of the article, it is noteworthy that since Trump convincingly won the US election on November 5, he has not provided any details about what the world can expect from his promised peace initiative.
Still, there was plenty of talk from both sides in the war. The Russians have repeatedly said they are happy to negotiate, albeit on their terms – for example, in Slovakia, an EU country that, because of its dependence on Russian gas, continues to kowtow to Putin and is therefore seen as unreliable in Brussels.
Zelensky, in turn, expressed confidence that the only way to withdraw Russian troops from the fifth of Ukraine's sovereign territory would be diplomatic, not military. Meanwhile, Ukraine itself continues to lose small territories, which leads to a large loss of life for Russia.
"If Russia were the military power it claims to be, with inexhaustible manpower, the conflict would have ended soon after it began, and legions of mercenaries would have been unnecessary. But the war is now in its 35th month; and even though territory has been lost, Ukraine has put up a remarkable resistance," the author writes.
In his opinion, the future of American hegemony—Pax Americana—depends on Trump's role in resolving the conflict. If other NATO members want to challenge Trump once he returns to the White House because they dislike certain aspects of his foreign policy, they should remember that this could have serious consequences for their security, the publicist warns.
Hence the growing tensions in the EU over what Trump may or may not seek to do.
Reports from the front suggest widespread skepticism among the combatants about Trump’s ability to end the war as quickly as he hopes. To do so without signaling to Putin that his tactics have worked, to avoid undermining NATO and limiting the likelihood of further attacks, Putin will have to make some concessions.
For this, according to the authors of the article, “there is an opportunity”: much in the Ukrainian issue is complicated by history, but this complex history, paradoxically, can provide room for maneuver.
Ideally, adds author Simon Heffer, such talks would be preceded by further increases in defence spending in NATO countries.
“Not only is the world too dangerous for this to continue, we must also understand that an immediate increase in defense spending, in addition to making us safer, will give us a louder voice in any peace negotiations and allow us to try to ensure the protection of NATO’s influence and future by preserving the unity of the alliance and avoiding an outright and unnecessary capitulation to Putin.
The State Department, and many Republicans in Congress, will be alert to all of these dangers, not least the risk that the new administration will alienate countries that are supposedly America's best friends.
Since Trump is not known for playing niceties with his positions, it may well be an encouraging sign that he has toned down his earlier rhetoric about an immediate solution to the Ukraine problem and become more measured by his standards.
The main function of European diplomats these days is to ensure that their friends in the State Department keep the President-elect in this reasonable frame of mind.
Only a madman would want the war in Ukraine to continue. But only a fool would want it to end with America, and by default the rest of NATO, forcing President Zelensky to kneel before Putin.
This should be a simple message for Trump the peacemaker to understand; as it should be noted, making peace and raising the white flag are rarely the same thing ," the author concludes.
Ukraine peace conference could spell the end of NATO – The Telegraph