Give peace a chance

In three years of throwing everything they have at Ukraine, Russia has taken 13% of a country on its own border (in addition to Crimea and Donetsk taken in 2014). Yet absurdly Macron and the Western European leaders think Putin will be at Paris if he is not stopped now.

To eject Russia from its entrenched positions would require a ground assault that might kill several hundred thousand more Ukrainians. 

A negotiated settlement involving a combination of massive investment in Ukraine and loosening of embargos on Russia is the obvious best course. 

I don't think Russia will invade any country beyond Ukraine or Moldova. Why would she? 

I don't think China will invade Australia either or Iran launch a nuclear war if she develops the H-bomb.

What I do fear is that Russians might take Odessa and the Ukrainian coast, as senior figures in the UK Ministry of Defence thought some time ago, though happily they seem to be making slow albeit steady progress.

Jack Matlock, the penultimate US Ambassador to the USSR and now 95, did not vote for Mr Trump and does not like most of his policies. He does however back his actions over Ukraine.

He has published an article in Responsible Statecraft which perfectly explains the situation in Ukraine and the need for a negotiated peace quickly.

'Days before the agreement was announced in Riyadh, Vice President Vance and Secretary of Defense Hegseth made policy statements at the Wehrkunde conference in Munich that raised the ire of some European allies and prominent politicians and journalists in the United States.

'In fact, these comments were either statements of fact (Ukraine is not a member of NATO) or of policy adjustments that are not only essential if the war is to end but in fact would have prevented the war if they had been adopted by earlier presidents: (Ukraine will not become a member of NATO; direct American involvement in the fighting will end; the U.S. will not act to protect European NATO forces deployed in Ukraine.)

'If these had been the policies of previous American administrations, the war in Ukraine would not have occurred. They are not capitulations in advance or appeasement as some critics have charged. They get at the roots of the war.

'President Zelensky, French president Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, among others have objected to Trump’s plan to negotiate with Russia first, then bring in the others. Actually, bilateral talks between the U.S. and Russia make sense. Former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin let the cat out of the bag when he observed that the purpose of supporting Ukraine was to weaken Russia. That policy has to end if there is to be peace in Europe in the future and it must be negotiated by the U.S. and Russia.'