A fools guide to Putin and Ukraine

Hoping Steve Witkoff reads this

We have been blessed, or perhaps best put “tarnished”, this week by simply idiotic comments from Donald Trump and his Middle East cum Russia - Ukraine peace talks envoy, Steve Witkoff.

In response to the heinous Russian attack on Sumy, which killed 34 civilians, injuring many more, Trump failed to criticise Russia, calling it simply a mistake and then went on to seemingly blame Zelensky for starting a war with a stronger opponent. There are alternative facts and then there is rewriting history, and outright lies but for the record Donald, Ukraine got invaded, rather as Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, et al were invaded in WW2 by the Nazis, and as the US was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour. The aggressor here is Russia. Plain and simple.

And then Trump’s side-kick, Witkoff, doubled up the offence to those brave

Ukrainians dying at the hand of Russia, by suggesting that the war in Ukraine was all about Russia’s claims to the five regions, or oblasts of Ukraine - presumably Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhiya. According to Witkoff then the best way to bring the war to an end is simply for Ukraine to surrender up the five regions to Russia. Note here that in the case of the latter four, Russia is still not in full control, so Witkoff’s proposal would involve Ukraine surrendering even more territory to Russia, than currently occupied by Russia.

A few people have asked me to put some historical perspective on all this as so much has happened over the past three years plus of war, and guess the decade or more before in/around the annexation of Crimea, that often people get lost in some of the actual facts.

So here goes?

Q? So who started the war?

Answer - this should be an easy one, surely. But evidently not for the Truth Bender in Chief, Donald Trump.

Ukraine did not attack Russia. Ukraine suffered a largescale invasion in February 2022, which actually followed a period of close to eight years of Russian military intervention in Ukraine, starting in 2014.

First, Russia annexed Crimea in April 2014, and later that year Russian tanks rolled over Ukraine’s eastern border (see the open source information as filmed by Western TV crews, including one team with the British Daily Telegraph) in Luhansk and Donetsk in support of an insurrection which had been inspired and manned by Russian operatives.

Thousands of Ukrainians were killed over the intervening period until February 2022, in their own country, at the hands of Russian troops, and Russian backed insurgents. During this whole period, where their country had been annexed and invaded by Russia, Ukraine’s failed to hit back against Russia.

Russian troops, meanwhile, shot down a Malaysian passenger jet, MH17, in July 2014, murdering all 283 passengers and 15 crew. The evidence from the Dutch inquiry was clear cut that a Russian air defence system (BUK) shot the plain down, but Moscow has failed to admit responsibility or pay damages. Moscow continues to lie.

Actually even prior to the annexation of Crimea in 2014, over much of the period of Putin’s period in power Ukraine was subject to threats, and blackmail, and intervention by Russia in Ukrainian politics to destabilise the country. It suffered numerous Russian trade blockades, energy wars (imposed by Russia) and bribery of its elites to keep them, and the country aligned with Russia. The best example of the latter was the $3bn loan extended by Ukraine in late 2013, as part of a larger $15 billion loan package from Russia, to keep Ukraine from signing an Association and Free Trade Agreement with the EU. The decision of the then Yanukovych government to take Russian money, spurn the chance of an association agreement with the EU, then lead to the Euromayden revolution.

And when we think of the two revolutions suffered by Ukraine, the Orange revolution in 2004/05 and then the Euromaydan in 2013/14 there is much to suggest that Russia was pushing for, even offering security services to the then Yanukovych administration, the to violent suppression of Ukrainian demonstrators. Eventually that did end in the killing of over a hundred demonstrators at the Euromaydan, more likely than not at the behest of Moscow. And we should be reminded then of the poisoning of former President Yushchenko in 2004, just prior to the presidential election in that year, likely again at the behest, or hand of Russia.

And what about Trump’s line that the war would not have happened on his watch, was Biden’s war and that if Crimea was not Russian, then Ukraine should have fought for it back then and Obama done more to stop Russia.

Well the first claim by Trump is perhaps easiest to deal with, as the war did happen on Trump’s watch and he did little to stop it thru peace talks then. Remember that Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, and invaded Ukraine - both Crimea and Donbas in the same year. War raged for the duration of Trump’s term from 2017-2021, with thousands of Ukrainian deaths. What substantive efforts did Trump put in to stopping the war back then, to better arm Ukraine, or to do much more to sanction Russia? The reality is not much and certainly not enough. Trump brags about the delivery of javelin missiles on his watch to Ukraine, the same missiles that proved so decisive in the initial battle for Kyiv. But the reality is that Ukraine had long begged for the delivery of javelins under both presidents Obama and Trump and both prevaricated, and delayed. Trump was likely only pushed over the line in the end to deliver the missiles by his aides to change the news cycle after his disastrous Helsinki summit performance with Putin and with the Russia investigation getting close to the bone.

On the issue of why Ukraine failed to put up much defence in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in April 2014 in part this reflected their force posture at the time, itself the result of a false confidence (evident only from hindsight) of the security guarantees given to Ukraine as per the Budapest Memorandum. Remember this is when in 1994 the great powers - the US, Russia, China, the U.K. and France - guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty and borders in exchange for Ukraine surrendering its then huge nuclear arsenal to Russia. Ukraine assumed its borders were secure and hence had only a few hundred troops guarding Crimea. Set against it were the close to 30,000 Russian troops legally stationed there as in per the long term Black Sea Fleet Agreement reached between Russia and Ukraine in 2009. A defence at that time was simply futile. Indeed, after failing to honour their commitments in the Budapest Memorandum, Western powers, including the US, advised Ukraine against mounting a defence at that time for Crimea, but instead bolstering its defences in the East against a possible Russian intervention in Donbas. As it happened that advice proved pertinent, given Russia’s first invasion of Donbas in July 2014. The Obama administration did respond to the annexation of Crimea by rolling out a sanction regime which at the time surprised Russia, and the world, and seemed to delay the Russian later invasion of Donbas. It seemed to buy Ukraine time to redeploy its forces to help counter the Russian attacks from the East, supporting Russian backed insurgents, in Donbas. Putin could perhaps have captured much more territory in 2014 if he had invaded Donbas very soon after the annexation of Crimea.

The question surely then is would Trump have reacted much differently to Obama in 2014? Would Trump have held to the terms of the Budapest Memorandum by stepping in to militarily support Ukraine then, by upholding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. I think everything we saw during Trump’s first term and since suggests that he would not, and indeed, would have been unlikely to have even rolled out the sanctions which the Obama team did, and which actually bought Ukraine time later to defend Donbas. Likely under Trump Crimea would have been annexed anyway, and Russia would have followed immediately afterwards with the first invasion of Donbas, likely then taking much more territory from the completely unprepared Ukrainians. The only fault of the Ukrainians was not in not fighting to defend Crimea but in stupidly believing in the security assurances provided to its by the great powers in the Budapest Memorandum, and perhaps then by giving up their nuclear areenal. Perhaps Russia would not have annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine if Ukraine possessed the nuclear deterrent. The actions of the Great Powers in failing to uphold the Budapest Memorandum, have likely dealt a severe blow to efforts at nuclear non proliferation.

Q? But surely Russia was provoked?

Answer: How?

Well here we come to the actual origins of the war, and this is where Stevie Witkoff needs to pay attention.

He argues that the war was about the five “Russian speaking” regions, that Russia is now laying claim to, and that somehow Russia has historical claim over.

For the information of Witkoff, I first visited the Soviet Union in 1987, Kyiv first in 1988, covered Ukraine as analyst since independence in 1991, lived in Ukraine, subsequently visited hundreds of times, along with visiting Russia many, many times. I have written thousands of articles and research reports on Ukraine in my 35 years covering the country. I can honestly say that I never heard of Russia having substantive claims to any of the five regions until 2014, and then only Crimea. Note here that at independence in 1991 a majority of people in every oblast or region of Ukraine, including Crimea, voted to back independence from the then Soviet Union. And while Ukraine might not had the greatest post independence economic experience, there simply were not popular or particularly well developed secession movements for the five regions mentioned to join Russia. Even within Russia, until the annexation of Crimea and then Russian military intervention in Ukraine in 2014 there was similarly no well developed or supported movement to have these regions incorporated into Russia.

True, after Euromaydan in 2014 there were some small demonstrations in Donetsk, and I think Luhansk, opposing deeper integration with the EU, and calling for closer ties with Russia, but at most these demonstrations numbered a few thousand at the time for a day or so, compared with the hundreds of thousands protesting in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, over months, in favour or Europe. Much suggested that at the time these small counter demonstrations were inspired, funded, and controlled by Russia. And indeed, I think Russia instigated and funded the forces that eventually emalgamated into the forces of the LPR and DPR, which were then supported by Russian regular forces in instigating the wars in Donetsk from 2014 onwards.

Russia did not invade Ukraine because it had some prior claim over these five regions. Indeed, Russia agreed to Ukrainian independence itself in 1991, accepting Ukraine’s terrotorial integrity. The issue of Russian claims to Ukrainian territory did not really surface in any meaningful way until 2014 and the annexation of Crimea.

And yes these regions are majority Russian speaking - most Ukrainians speak Russian, due to long standing cultural, linguistic and familial links. President Zelensky’s own mother tongue is Russian, and the irony is the the campaigned in the 2019 presidential election on a platform of talking to Russia and making a deal. But there s a difference in talking a particular language and wanted to be incorporated into the state of origin f the mother tongue. Is the fact that the dominant language in Ireland is English reason enough to think that Ireland is really British. Or the U.S., or Canada, or Australia, et al. Many (the vast majority) Ukrainians might speak Russian, but identify as Ukrainian. And in fact opinion polls show that in response to Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine Russian speakers in Eastern Ukraine have more affinity with Ukraine, and the sense of Ukrainian identify has been accentuated. This sense is now more well founded than at any time in my over thirty years visiting the country. Polls now show single digit support for greater alignment with Moscow, whereas opinion was more 25-75 split before the annexation of Ukraine in favour of deeper integration with Europe, as opposed to Russia.

Now at the time, remember that Russia claimed its decision to annex Crimea was inspired by the threat of NATO expansion to Ukraine, and the risk then of the loss of its Sebastopol Black Sea Fleet base. And subsequently Russia has argued that its full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was driven again by the fear of NATO expansion to Ukraine.

So Witkoff, is it NATO expansion, or the five regions that are at the core of Russia’s problem with Ukraine?

On NATO, I simply do not agree with the claim that the war was caused by Russian unease around Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership or the threat from NATO enlargement east.

First, back in 2014, the date of the annexation of Crimea, and the first direct and open Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Ukraine had no serious NATO membership aspirations. Ukraine back then had non aligned status, enshrined in the constitution and opinion polls showed support for NATO membership in the low teens, so there was no way to change this. And major NATO powers, like the US, and Germany were set against its membership - and still are in the case of the US. Ukraine had little real military capability and hence was no military threat to Russia - as reflected in the fact that Crimea was taken by Russia in a matter of hours with no bloodshed. Its military doctrine was actually anti Western still, inherited from Soviet times. Ukraine was no military threat to Russia, had no credible NATO membership perspective - and Russia knew this, and yet still invaded.

And then there is the whole Russian bull about NATO enlargement posing a threat to Russia. When has NATO invaded any piece of Russia? Russia instead has been the aggressor in Europe, invading Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, using WMD twice against a NATO member - the U.K., with Litvinenko and Salsbery, attacking Europe thru cyberattacks and attacks on critical infrastructure and cabling. And just looking at NATO enlargement - well each wave has seen reduced NATO spending as countries have felt safer inside NATO and with the collective security guarantees. NATO spent the peace dividend so much so that NATO spending in Europe fell from 4-5% of GDP in 1989 to less than 2% of GDP at the point of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The U.K. cut the number of soliders to 78,000, the lowest number since WW1. Germany cut its MBTs from several thousand to 178 and most of three weeks inoperable. NATO downsized so much that Europe is unable now to defend itself, let alone attack Russia. And even the US, withdraw its last MBT from Europe in 2013, a year before the Russian annexation of Crimea. Each wave of NATO expansion has seen less defence spending, less European NATO defence capability, and less threat to Russia. European NATO lacks the capability to defend itself at this stage, let alone attack Russia. And Russia knew this as it had a huge intelligence gathering network. Putin takes Trump for an idiot, or an asset, or both. And let’s assume NATO expansion was really a threat to Russia, well how come Russia has not responded with Sweden and Finland opting to join NATO? Both these countries have a greater military capability - or threat to Russia - than Ukraine had in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, so why did Russia not then attack these two countries?

So it was not about the five Ukrainian regions, or NATO enlargement to Ukraine, or in general in Europe.

So why does Putin have such a problem with an independent Ukraine, so much so that he invaded.

Read my lips moment for Stevie Witkoff - who I think needs everything spelling out when it comes to Ukraine and Russia.

In my mind the key turning point for Putin on Ukraine was the Euromaydan, when Ukrainians rejected the Russian vision of a autocratic, kleptocratic state for the country. They stood up for a change in direction for Ukraine, one with a European course and aspiring to European values of democracy, rule of law, human rights, and decency. And the fear for Putin was that if Ukrainians wanted those things, so could (and do) Russians. And that means if Ukraine moves to Europe, and is successful, as all the countries are who have been given EU accession perspectives, then Russians will want the same. He fears a similar revolution against his rule at home in Russia. So unable to to counter that threat he invaded to ensure Ukraine was unable to move towards Europe, and would not be a succesful, democratic, market economy with the rule of law. His invasion and continued attacks on Ukraine are aimed at ensuring an independent Ukraine fails and that sends a message to Russians at home, that dissent will not be tolerated. For Putin, his vision for Ukraine is of a subjugated state, or region of Russia, a reset back to the USSR, where Kyiv is a satellite of Moscow.

Now Putin might argue that it is about great powers having spheres of influence, and I guess Trump might agree with that given his push to take over Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal. But for Putin it is more than that, as Putin does not want a successful democratic, rules based Ukraine which could be an example for Russians to emulate something similar for Russia.

Now the problem here for Witkoff is that even if he delivers the five regions of Ukraine to Russia, and no NATO membership for Ukraine, that’s just not going to be enough for Putin. He wants total subjugation of Ukraine to Russia, or if Ukraine remains in a European orbit then he wants its failure economically, socially and politically. He wants it not to be a model for Russians to follow.

A few things follow on from here.

First, if he is succesful and take the five regions, plus the no NATO pledge, he is still likely to continue to push and demand for more, to the point of Ukraine’s subjugation to Russia. What that means for Europe, is that two of Europe’s biggest militaries and military industrial complexes - Russia and Ukraine - will be combined, presenting a huge and existential security threat then to Europe. Why would Putin stop there when he has the military means to take the Baltic states, and to put right what he himself has described as the biggest catastrophe of the 20th century, the collapse of the USSR? He will carry on, moving West.

Second, assuming he is not able to subjugate Ukraine totally, but keeps the country in a constant state of insecurity, thru constant probing, artillery and missiles strikes, that scenario means that Ukraine can never economically develop as investment will be limited. It means sub par growth and economic underdevelopment for Ukraine, out migration and the risk of social and political instability in Ukraine. Such a scenario in Ukraine, which is now a huge military power in Europe, would present a huge security risk for Europe. It also risks the movement of tens of millions of Ukrainians West, creating huge economic, social and political challenges for Europe, and further fuelling the political extremes in Europe.

Now all the above is obvious for me, and evidenced by fact - the actual invasion, actual reduced NATO spend and capability in Europe.

The question is are Trump and Witkoff interested at all in facts, or the truth? Or is this just part of a desperate desire by both to be liked by the fascist dictator, and war criminal Putin? I revert there to Fiona Hill, Trump’s ex NSC head for Europe, who recants that Trump only asked her two questions on Putin - and Fiona has written the best book by far on Putin (Putin the Operative). Those questions are revealing and were “what is Putin like as a person, and will he like me”? This was already a man, Putin, who had killed Litvinenko, used WMD in Salsbery, invaded Donbas, and Georgia, and likely killed numerous domestic political opponents, including Nemtsov.

What is he like? Really?

And that Trump cares above all that he is liked by such a character? Incredible and really saying everything about Trump that anyone could need to know. Weird.

Now neither Trump not Witkoff seem to have cares about Ukraine, or indeed European security. But both Ukraine and Europe should, and the latter, in particular, now obviously needs to step up and make sure that the seemingly unthinking, uncaring Trump and Witkoff do not get to enforce a peace on Ukraine, to Russia’s great advantage and the great disadvantage of Ukraine and Europe.