We stand at a fork in the road. The system that has shaped global order since 1945 – a combined military (Nato), diplomacy (the UN Charter) and trade links (a peaceful EU) – is cracking and whether it breaks depends on how the West responds to Donald Trump’s proposed Ukraine deal.
Either we accept a deal which seems to have Russia’s fingerprints all over it – and pressure Ukraine to do the same – to end a war which has stretched on for three-and-a-half years. Or, we push back – and perhaps even walk away – if Ukraine doesn’t get what it needs.
This is a moment of enormous danger for the UK and Europe. Choose the former, easier road and we return to what has been true for most of human history: might trumps right. The latter path is harder, longer, requires more sacrifice – and preserves the world our generation inherited. The choice is here, now.
Many, dear reader, will try to convince you to take that easier path. Like Trump or not, he knows that a deal prioritising Russia’s interests reflects the world as it is – not as we wish it to be.
Ukraine, in this reading, is weak and fighting to hold on. Russia controls about 20 per cent of Ukrainian territory and is making progress; in the last month, Ukraine has lost a further 450 sq km. Western backers, drained by nearly four years of war and riven by discontent at home, can’t continue to fund it. And by their nature, democracies simply can’t sustain the “strategic patience” of lifelong autocrats, who control not just the media but the ballot box.
Worse, the existential risk isn’t limited to Ukraine. Resisting Russia risks the West, as Trump put it in February, “gambling with World War Three”. The longer the war, the greater the risk of a military misjudgement with a nuclear-armed Russia. With Article 5 protections in play, recent Russian drone incursions into Romania remind us how quickly a Ukrainian conflict could spiral into a Nato conflict. Unlikely? Perhaps. But, we humans are terrible at pricing risk – especially when the impact is unthinkable.
The prospect of a triumph for Ukraine on the battlefield is low – and continuing the conflict risks catastrophe. And so the logic is simple: settle now, while Kyiv still has leverage and US backing. Deals only get worse with time; just ask the Palestinians.
This argument feels grimly plausible. Its fatalism is seductive. Sure, it’s sad, but it couldn’t have played out any other way.
If you find yourself nodding along, take a pause and reflect. Trump’s proposal is not just a bad deal for Ukraine. Sign it, and we will set a precedent that will echo for decades. Invade another country and you keep the territory. Commit war crimes? You’ll get immunity from prosecution. Hold your course and the West will tire.
Here and now is the biggest test since 1945 – and the sacrifices the UK and Europe are making are small. We’re not putting troops at risk on the front line. Our ability to back Ukraine dwarfs Russia – European and US GDP combined is roughly 24 times larger than Russia’s. But, we’re at risk of failing this test all the same.
If a good deal is available, we should back it. That means one which Ukraine agrees to, free from pressure to fold. In the past, Zelensky has pushed for a full withdrawal of Russian troops, the return of prisoners and kidnapped Ukrainian children, prosecution of Russian leaders for war crimes and security guarantees to prevent further Russian aggression. If not, we must be willing to back Ukraine on the battlefield – because war is simply diplomacy by other means.
I have seen how peace deals happen – and the ones which truly preserve peace are those that allow both sides to write a “victory speech” they can sell to their people.
If we take the easy route, and sacrifice the global order – deny Zelensky that speech – do we at least secure peace in our time? No. Trump’s deal doesn’t reduce the risk of World War Three – it increases it. The likelihood of miscalculation grows, not shrinks, when aggressors learn they can rewrite borders with impunity.
If Putin “gets away with it” in Ukraine, he will assume the West’s red lines – including Nato’s Article 5 – are negotiable. A bad deal encourages Putin to pick away at the Baltic states.
This isn’t just about Russia. When the West signals fatigue, dictators take notes. Putin will. So, too, Xi Jinping in Beijing. Taiwan is the next global flashpoint. China is bigger, operating in its own backyard – and knows Taiwan isn’t protected by Nato’s Article 5 guarantee. If we can’t hold back Putin, what message does that send about our willingness to deter a rising superpower?
Your next read
This is a test of the West and of democracy itself. Yes, living costs are high. Yes, political trust is low. Yes, power is shifting globally. But there is still much in our favour. The resources we can still bring to bear – money, munitions, industrial capacity, diplomatic weight – remain decisive if we choose to use them. Ukraine is enduring far worse, with far less.
And the uncomfortable truth is that it’s not just a test of the West; it’s a test of all of us. Every generation is called to defend something greater than itself, to sacrifice for what we know to be right, to choose the future we wish to pass on. If we are to make a sacrifice, what cause could be more worthwhile but security in our time, in our neighbourhood? We reaffirm our values not when it is easy, but when it is hard.
Russia cannot win. That’s not a prediction – of course it can. But it is a statement of will: that we will not allow the peace and security previous generations fought for to slip away. It endures only if we choose to uphold it. Even if that requires sacrifice.
