You know there’s a problem when even the Tories are distancing themselves from Trump

@frank_freeman If I understand you correctly, you say that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could have ended in April 2022. That assumes Putin would have accepted the limited gains you identify (Feb 2022 boundary). I cannot find evidence that Putin has ever seriously committed to peace talks. He invaded with the intention of taking the whole of ‘the Ukraine’ back as sovereign Russian territory and, as far as I know, has never abandoned that nationalist/imperialist aim. This was especially his firm position in 2022, although at times since he has varied his stance as he tracks events, sometimes threatening escalation to nuclear war, sometimes saying he just wants peace. But when it is ‘peace only on his terms’ this is not a realistic negotiating position between nation states so I take what he says with a large pinch of salt.

You suggest that support for Ukraine from allies in Europe, USA, or elsewhere prolonged the war beyond 2022 and this is a bad thing. I say that, firstly, the allies had signed treaties which required them to help Ukraine (this was part of the deal back in the 1990s when Ukraine gave up its nuclear arms in exchange for guarantees its allies would defend it if it were attacked). When Ukraine’s elected government (with substantial public support) sought help, the allies were legally obliged to help. Secondly, the end result of this help has been to continue to defend Ukraine and to strengthen Ukraine’s political position so that when there is a peace deal, Ukraine will not be crushed by unfair terms. Yes, fighting this war has cost many lives on both sides which is deplorable but the moral fault lies with the aggressor – you should hold Putin responsible for all the death and destruction his decisions have caused. Thirdly, all morally good people want peace so I agree with you that must be our aim. But a lasting peace must be based on truth and justice. Ukraine will only have lasting peace if we tell the truth about events, apportion responsibility fairly, and create a settlement that most of those directly involved find tolerable. Right now, I am aware of interventions from Europe and China (to give the biggest actors) that seek to be ‘honest brokers’ for a lasting peace. Yes, they have vested interests but the quid pro quo seems to be ‘fair enough’ not to cheat Ukrainians or Russians of a fair settlement. I think we should hear what these peace-advocates have to say, and if they say Putin is not offering a real deal on peace we should pay attention. You might question Europe’s bona fides but China is a big Russian ally and they have not directly aided Putin’s war unlike e.g. North Korea or some international volunteer groups. I think that means China does not support either the invasion or ‘peace at any price’. I say we should take China seriously on this point. On the other hand, there have been interventions from USA and Russia which are utterly corrupt and self-serving: Putin wants everything for nothing as his reward for breaking international law and the post-1945 consensus on ‘not invading peaceful neighbours to steal their territory’. Why should Ukraine reward him? Why would any nation state reward the aggressor – would Britain reward Putin if he invaded the Home Counties by giving him control of them just because he demanded it? Of course not. If you disagree then please note I claim ownership of your house and want you out by midnight or I’ll send the boys round to evict you. No I am not, that was just a joke, but Putin is not joking. As for the current USA stance, Trump sees Ukraine as a victim and thus weak. His instinct is not to protect victims but exploit them. His policy is to demand blackmail from Ukraine in exchange for ‘support’. ‘Give me all your valuable minerals and I will tell Putin to agree peace with you, incidentally it will be a peace where you give Putin all of your territory’, is paraphrasing Trump’s stance. So, Putin gets land and ports and access to the economically and militarily strategic European shipping routes, and Trump gets control of Ukraine’s mineral wealth, and Ukraine is left with nothing except the cost of its war of defence and the need to continue to arm itself to stop Putin coming back next year for another chunk of territory or Trump coming back to demand a new blakmail payment. When Ukraine has little to gain and everything to lose, why should Ukraine accept this so-called ‘peace deal’?

I did not read the Canary editorial as warmongering. I think it was a fair evaluation of the situation as it stands today. Yes, we should want peace but it must be a peace based on justice otherwise it will not last and a future war will be fought in order to right the grievances of a fake peace. Either we do the tough stuff now, or we will have to face tougher choices tomorrow. I think the wise choice is to fight Putin until he stops believing he can make progress through wars of aggression and returns to negotiating his relationships with the rest of the world. I think even China agrees to this despite their own views on Taiwan. I think Xi has quietly back-pedalled on his jingoism in light of Ukraine’s defence, and now wants to find a way to negotiate unification of Taiwan with the mainland, whereas before this war it was all sabre-rattling and showcasing the PRC military might. There are two kinds of knife, a straight knife and a subtle knife. Straight knives have hard blades made of metal or flint or ceramic etc. A subtle knife is made of flexible material such as silken thread. You can chop an apple in half with a straight blade but if you wrap the thread around an apple correctly in one stroke you can cut it into many segments, something no straight blade can do. There are times when you need crude force and other times when you need subtlety. I think Putin and Trump are trying to use crude force to get their way but we are seeing how crudity fails. Looking to the future, the smart money is on subtle force and I think we are seeing how catastrophic errors by Putin and Trump are destroying the old ‘super powers’ and allowing the new world order to emerge – one dominated by subtle powers, by the silky blades used by Europe and China. Personally, I am cautiously optimistic about that outcome not least because subtly avoids mass killing and that is something better than more war which is all Putin and Trump offer.