No Tango With the US

Air Cmde T.K. Chatterjee (retd)

Wars end in many ways. It may be an outright victory like the defeat of Germany and Japan in WWII or Pakistan in Bangladesh in 1971. It can be a mediated or negotiated settlement like the Korean Armistice in 1953 or the Dayton Accord in the Bosnian War in 1995. It can also be a stalemate or a frozen conflict where active fighting may stop, but the underlying issues remain unresolved, like India-Pakistan conflicts since 1948 and the many India-China confrontations since 1962.

It is being claimed by the President-elect of the United States, Donald Trump, that the Ukrainian war will be stopped within 24 hours of his assuming office, which is two months from now. That will perhaps herald a new category of war-ending methodologies. Ending wars between nations by threatening to choke arms and ammunition supplies to one of them. A brief outline of the peace proposal is already doing rounds in the Western media, perhaps leaked intentionally to prepare the world for the upcoming geopolitical realignments under the new regime in the US. In brief, the frontline of the war will be frozen at its current position, a buffer zone between the opposing forces will be created and supervised by neutral parties, territory held by the Russians will remain with Russia, and Ukraine will remain neutral and not join NATO for at least the next twenty years. All these are in Russia’s favour. In Ukraine’s favour are a rather undefined security guarantee from the West and a promise of continued supply of arms to build up its resources to defend itself from any future Russian onslaught.

This security guarantee from the West, a synonym for NATO, is a rather dubious promise. NATO itself needs to survive the next four years of the Trump administration, given the threat of the US withdrawing from it. Whether these were mere electoral rhetoric or serious threats remains to be seen. But pity the Ukrainians who fought so valiantly for the last two years, and after losing 31,000 of their soldiers and almost a third of their country, to end the war so meekly under such ominous conditions.

In the absence of the US, will Europe take it upon itself to keep Ukraine supplied with resources to continue the war? It will take a consensus of 27 countries, each with its own agenda. The American promise of ‘as long as it takes’ has ended, and we have heard enough of ‘Ukraine cannot lose, and Russia cannot win’ from the EU parliament. Now is the time to walk the talk. As yet we have heard nothing that can reassure the Ukrainians. With the German coalition in the doldrum, the Itali