By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Prime Minister Starmer, distrustful of Putin’s intentions, is leading a diplomatic push to create a multinational coalition safeguarding Ukraine’s future after a potential peace deal, fearing Russia might leave Ukraine vulnerable to future attacks. This initiative involves securing Ukraine’s borders, skies, and ports, despite NATO’s limitations and Russia’s rejection of a peacekeeping force. Starmer emphasizes the need for stronger European defense commitments and a closer UK-US relationship, actively mediating between Trump and Zelensky to foster cooperation. He advocates for increased British military spending to meet evolving security challenges, urging a more immediate and proactive approach to European defense.
Read the original article here
The core issue is a profound lack of trust in Vladimir Putin. This distrust is not merely a gut feeling; it stems from a pattern of behavior demonstrating a clear intent to leave Ukraine defenseless. Putin’s history of aggression, from Chechnya to Georgia to Crimea, paints a consistent picture of expansionist ambitions and disregard for international norms. His actions reveal a calculated strategy of victimization, stripping away protections from weaker parties to exploit them further.
This pattern of behavior should be alarmingly obvious, yet some maintain a facade of obliviousness, clinging to the improbable notion that Putin’s actions could not have been foreseen. This blindness, however, is neither innocent nor accidental; it serves to justify inaction or, worse, complicity. The “could seek” framing of Putin’s intentions is dangerously misleading; it’s not a possibility, it’s a demonstrated aim.
The suggestion that appeasement, or negotiation with Putin, is a viable path to peace is utterly naive. Making concessions to Putin is akin to inviting further aggression; it emboldens him and invites more violence. Any agreement with him is worthless, lacking the integrity to be considered binding. His words are as meaningless as the paper they’re written on.
This sentiment extends to the perception of certain political figures. A lack of trust is extended not just to Putin but to those who appear unduly influenced by him, or who actively collaborate with his aims, directly or indirectly. Blind faith, or worse, complicity in Putin’s actions makes these figures equally untrustworthy. Their actions betray an alarming disregard for the suffering of the Ukrainian people.
The concern goes beyond simple distrust; it highlights a systemic vulnerability. The potential for a defenseless Ukraine is not a hypothetical scenario; it’s the very goal of Putin and his supporters. This potential is being enabled by those who either actively aid Putin’s efforts, or who through inaction leave Ukraine exposed to his machinations. This failure to act decisively allows Putin to continue his pattern of aggression.
The notion of peace offered by Russia is a deceptive mirage, masking a continuation of violence under a guise of control. “Peace” under Putin’s terms means total Russian dominance, with continued oppression and violence masked by the veneer of control. The current conflict isn’t simply about territorial gain; it’s about establishing a new status quo in which Russia dictates terms to its neighbors.
The scale of the current conflict is immense and demanding. A true defense of Ukraine against Putin’s aggression requires a substantial and sustained commitment of resources, far beyond what is currently being provided. This includes not only military hardware but also logistical support, intelligence, and sustained political backing. It needs a level of commitment and cooperation that transcends short-term political expediency.
The argument isn’t solely about providing military aid to Ukraine; it’s about preventing further expansionist actions by a demonstrably hostile actor. The risk of inaction far outweighs the cost of decisive engagement. The ultimate cost of failing to confront Putin’s aggression will be far greater than the resources required to prevent it. The consequences of inaction are immense.
This challenge extends beyond military capabilities; it demands a reassessment of political alliances and international cooperation. The current situation highlights the flaws in existing structures and the urgency for a unified and decisive response. Only through a concerted international effort, marked by unwavering resolve and collective action, can we hope to prevent the disastrous scenario of a defenseless Ukraine. The time for wavering or complacency is over. The time for decisive action is now.