This question was a lurking preoccupation at the London Defence Conference this week, attended by the prime minister and the chief of defence staff along with academics and politicians from across the Western world.
There was general consensus that victory is essential not just for Ukraine but also for the continued security of its allies. In the margins of the conference George Robertson, former NATO secretary general and UK defence secretary, warned that the rules-based order will be over unless Russia’s illegal and violent invasion is repelled.
Autocrats, in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere will feel free to grab territory and rewrite national borders if Putin gets away with invading a sovereign neighbour.
The commander of the UK’s armed forces, CDS Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, insisted that NATO must do everything it can to support Ukraine’s forces, short of joining the fight. The UK is aiming to train over 20,000 Ukrainian troops this year. He argued that Western politicians should “not be afraid of escalation”.
Time is pressing. Many feared that backing for Ukraine would quickly fracture should Donald Trump, or another Trumpist Republican, be elected to the US presidency in November 2024. Although the retired US Army general Ben Hodges was confident that the bipartisan support by Republicans and Democrats in the US Congress would survive even that.
More from UK
Ukraine is rewriting the global balance of power.
Most significantly NATO has been strengthened by formerly neutral Finland and Sweden seeking to join. Against that, Russia and China have drawn closer together, while rising “middle” powers in India, Africa, and Latin America have deliberately refused to take sides, effectively indulging Putin’s ambitions.
Advertisement
Image: There’s broad agreement in the West that Russian can’t be allowed to win the war
Beyond the much desired and essential liberation of Ukraine as a free nation state, what challenges lie ahead? I asked an all-female panel of experts to compile a “future risks” register of the threats they see to our security.
Their suggestions ranged far and wide: conflicts with Russia and/or China over Taiwan and the Arctic; Iran; nuclear weapons; Chinese expansionism, and conversely an economic slowdown in China; fragmentation or disruption of global supply chains and communications networks; climate change; competition for hydrocarbon energy sources and the rare earth metals essential for both digital communications and renewable energy generation; societal breakdown due to rising economic pressures.
In spite of the immense damage being wrought by Russia, there was a surprising consensus that Putin’s regime has miscalculated and that Russia is now effectively a dependency of China. Russia’s rebuff in Ukraine has removed any active threat of China invading Taiwan, for all of President Xi’s declared intention to resolve the matter this generation.
Russia’s power lies in its role as an oil and gas supplier. It has now joined Saudi Arabia in OPEC+ and China has brokered a cautious reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, another hydrocarbon producer. As Europe weans itself off Russian energy, these suppliers are finding new customers and building their influence in other parts of the world.
Helen Thompson, professor of political science at Cambridge University, raised the possibility that a new OPEC-style cartel could emerge of countries with rare earth metals which are vital for new technology. “Even if we succeed in decarbonising,” she said, the amount of foreign metal dependency we will have will be huge.”
At the same time, she pointed out that the best efforts of Saudi Arabia and its allies failed to stop the US becoming the world’s biggest producer of oil and gas. The world is becoming more competitive and multi-polar, but the US is likely to remain dominant thanks to its natural resources, its lead in technology and the strength of its economy.
As China’s population ages, its economy is growing more slowly. Western leaders need to be vigilant as China seeks to bend existing global institutions such as the UN to its own advantage but, unlike Russia, according to Professor Thomson, China does wish to smash the rules-based world order established after the Second World War.
Image: Experts have warned about China’s ambitions but say any active threat to Taiwan has gone
Since the launch of ChatGPT, political leaders have been concerned about the “existential” threat posed by artificial intelligence.
Sam Altman, the chief executive of Open AI – which developed Chat GPT, was summoned to give evidence before the US Congress. This week he attended a meeting with Rishi Sunak, along with other tech bosses, to discuss how to moderate AI and prevent a catastrophe.
So far cooperation seems to be working, as tech innovators, including Elon Musk, voice their concerns to law makers.
Meanwhile, Nobel Peace winner Henry Kissinger has been focussing on the potential consequences of AI. Mr Kissinger, who was President Nixon’s secretary of state in the 1970s, is regarded by many as a foreign policy guru.
In a series of interviews to mark his 100th birthday this weekend, he has warned: “The speed with which artificial intelligence acts will make it problematical in crisis situations… I am now trying to do what I did with respect to nuclear weapons, to call attention to the importance of the impact of this evolution…It’s going to be different. Because in the previous arms races, you could develop plausible theories about how you might prevail. It’s a totally new problem intellectually…”
His comment helps to explain why AI was not discussed as a major risk by my panel. AI and quantum computers are likely to be extraordinarily powerful tools but they will ultimately be regulated and directed by human beings. They have no independent agency. It is up to us to get it right.
Image: There are concerns over AI but it will ultimately be regulated and directed by humans
With a self-deprecating “I would say this wouldn’t I?”, Polly Scully argued that data processing was potentially an asset which would could make the lives of citizens better through better analysis and forewarning of threats.
Her background was as a British civil servant working on crisis amelioration. She now works for Palantir, the Big Data analytics company co-founded by Peter Thiel, a major Silicon Valley investor.
The panellists – also including China expert Francesca Ghiretti and Mafrid Brout Hammer of the University of Oslo – agreed that a greater threat was posed by the disruption of communication and electricity supplies, possibly by malign cutting of under-sea cables than by the application of technology.
The discussions of risks at the London Defence Conference left me more optimistic.
On the immediate crisis in Ukraine, Ukraine has not yet won and much sacrifice will be needed for years to come. But CDS Radakin said that Western forces have “nothing to learn from the way Russia is fighting”, but they are adapting and modernising rapidly themselves because of their experiences in the conflict.
He does not believe there is an incentive for Putin to deploy nuclear weapons because they would serve no military purpose and because they would provoke an overwhelming response from NATO.
Over the horizon there are certainly major challenges and threats. Globally we are not moving fast enough on climate change. Countries with different ideologies from the “Western” democratic nations are gaining strength. Western politically institutions have taken a kicking recently thanks to poor and self-indulgent leadership.
Much work is required to win back hearts and minds around the world. But, if we pull ourselves together, “We” in the Western democracies still have the material, technological and human resources to overcome those risks which we can see ahead.
A “cheap ceasefire” between Ukraine and Russia – with Kyiv forced to surrender land – would create an “expensive peace” for the whole of Europe, Norway’s foreign minister has warned.
Espen Barth Eide explained this could mean security challenges for generations, with the continent’s whole future “on the line”.
It was why Ukraine, its European allies and the US should seek to agree a common position when trying to secure a settlement with Vladimir Putin, the top Norwegian diplomat told Sky News in an interview during a visit to London on Tuesday.
“I very much hope that we will have peace in Ukraine and nobody wants that more than the Ukrainians themselves,” Mr Eide said.
“But I am worried that we might push this to what in quotation marks is a ‘cheap ceasefire’, which will lead to a very expensive peace.”
Explaining what he meant, Mr Eide said a post-war era follows every conflict – big or small.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:29
Inside Ukraine’s underground military HQ
How that plays out typically depends upon the conditions under which the fighting stopped.
“If you are not careful, you will lock in certain things that it will be hard to overcome,” he said.
“So if we leave with deep uncertainties, or if we allow a kind of a new Yalta, a new Iron Curtain, to descend on Europe as we come to peace in Ukraine, that’s problematic for the whole of Europe. So our future is very much on the line here.”
He said this mattered most for Ukrainians – but the outcome of the war will also affect the future of his country, the UK and the rest of the continent.
“This has to be taken more seriously… It’s a conflict in Europe, it has global consequences, but it’s fundamentally a war in our continent and the way it’s solved matters to our coming generations,” the Norwegian foreign minister said.
Russia ‘will know very well how to exploit vagueness’
Asked what he meant by a cheap ceasefire, he said: “If Ukraine is forced to give up territory that it currently militarily holds, I think that would be very problematic.
“If restrictions are imposed on future sovereignty. If there’s vagueness on what was actually agreed that can be exploited. I think our Russian neighbours will know very well how to exploit that vagueness in order to keep a small flame burning to annoy us in the future.”
Progress being made on peace talks
Referring to the latest round of peace talks, initiated by Donald Trump, Mr Eide signalled that progress was being made from an initial 28-point peace plan proposed a couple of weeks ago by the United States that favoured Moscow over Kyiv.
That document included a requirement for the Ukrainian side to give up territory it still holds in eastern Ukraine to Russia and Mr Eide described it as “problematic in many aspects”.
But he said: “I think we’ve now had a good conversation between Ukraine, leading European countries and the US on how to adapt and develop that into something which might be a good platform for Ukraine and its allies to go to Russia with.
“We still don’t know the Russian response, but what I do know is the more we are in agreement as the West, the better Ukraine will stand.”
Lithuania has declared a state of emergency over smuggler balloons from Belarus that have disrupted aviation.
Vilnius airport has been closed because of the balloons, which Lithuania says have been sent by smugglers transporting cigarettes in recent weeks.
It also says they constitutes a “hybrid attack” by Belarus, which is a close ally of Russia.
Lithuania is a NATO member and ally to Ukraine during its fight against Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.
On Tuesday Lithuania’s interior minister Vladislav Kondratovic told a government meeting: “The state of emergency is announced not only due to civil aviation disruptions but also due to interests of national security.”
Mr Kondratovic added that the Lithuanian government had asked parliament to grant the military powers to act with police, border guards and security forces during the state of emergency.
Should parliament agree, the army will be given permission to limit access to territory, stop and search vehicles, perform checks on people, their documents and belongings, and to detain those resisting or suspected of crimes.
Image: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen described the balloon incursions as “completely unacceptable”. Pic: AP
Lithuania’s defence minister Robert Kaunas said the military would be permitted to use force for these functions.
Belarus has denied responsibility and accused Lithuania of provocations.
This includes sending a drone to drop “extremist material”, which Lithuania denies.
With more than a thousand troops being killed or wounded every day, there’s no sign that Donald Trump’s push to end Russia’s war in Ukraine is reducing the battles on the ground.
Quite the opposite.
Ukraine‘s military chief says Vladimir Putin is instead using the US president‘s focus on peace negotiations as “cover” while Russian soldiers attempt to seize more land.
That means much greater pressure on the Ukrainian frontline, even as Russian and American, or American and Ukrainian, or Ukrainian and European, leaders shake hands and smile for cameras before retreating behind closed doors in Moscow, Alaska, and London.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:05
This was not an upbeat meeting of Ukraine and its allies
Putin’s not counting on peace
The lack of any indicators that the Kremlin is looking to slow its military machine down also makes the risk of war spreading beyond Ukraine’s borders increasingly likely.
It takes a huge amount of effort, time, and money to put a country on a war footing as Putin has done, partially mobilising his population, allocating huge portions of government spending to the military and realigning Russia’s vast industrial base to produce weapons and ammunition.
Image: Putin has been in India to shore up support from Narendra Modi. Pic: Reuters
But when the fighting stops, it requires almost as much focus and energy to switch a society back to a peace time rhythm.
Deliberately choosing not to dial defence down once the battles cease means a nation will continue to grow its armed forces and weapons stockpiles – a sure sign that it has no intention of being peaceful and is merely having a pause before going on the attack again.
The absence of any preparations by Moscow to slow the tempo of its military operations in Ukraine – where it has more than 710,000 troops deployed along a 780-mile frontline – is perhaps an indicator that Putin is anticipating more not less war.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:07
What is Putin trying to achieve in India?
How could the war end?
What happens next in Europe will depend on the content of any peace deal on Ukraine.
An all-out Russian defeat is all but impossible to conceive without a significant change of heart by the Trump White House and a massive increase in weapons and support.
The next best result for Ukraine would be a settlement that seeks to strike a fair balance between the warring sides and their conflicting objectives.
This could be done by pausing the fighting along the current line of contact before substantive peace talks then take place, with Ukraine’s sovereignty supported by solid security guarantees from Europe and the US.
But such a move would require Europe’s NATO allies, led by the UK, France and Germany, genuinely to switch their respective militaries and populations back to a wartime footing, with a credible readiness to go to war should Moscow attempt to test their support of Ukraine.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:47
Why Ukraine’s allies may welcome Trump walking away
Will Starmer level with the public?
That does not just mean increased spending on defence at a much faster rate – in the UK at least – than is currently planned. It is also about the mindset of a country and its willingness to take some pain.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:46
New UK military technology unveiled
Worst case scenario?
The other alternative when it comes to Ukraine is a scenario that sees a sidelined Europe unable to influence the outcome of the negotiations and Kyiv forced to agree to terms that favour Moscow.
This would include the surrender of land in the Donbas that is still under Ukrainian control.
Such a deal – even if tolerated by Ukraine, which is unimaginable without serious unrest – would likely only mean a temporary halt in hostilities until Putin or whoever succeeds him decides to try again to take the rest of Ukraine, or maybe even test NATO’s borders by moving against the Baltic States.
With Trump’s new national security strategy making clear the US would only intervene to defend Europe if such a move is in America’s interests, it is no longer certain that the guarantees contained in NATO’s founding Article 5 principle – that an attack on one member state is an attack on all – can be relied upon.
In the scenario, Washington does not come to Britain’s defences, which leaves the British side with very few options to respond short of a nuclear strike.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.