Could Ukraine be partitioned like Berlin was after Germany’s surrender in 1945? - Patrick Mercer
Despite everyone’s hope, there’s still no ceasefire in Ukraine that I can see. There’s been plenty of talk and a tepid attempt to make a partial truce work, but nothing seems to have halted the Russian onslaught.
Indeed, General Syrskyi (Kiev’s commander in chief) tells us that Moscow has launched a spring offensive which has resulted in thousands of civilians being evacuated from Sumy in the northern part of the front rather than let them be ‘liberated’ by the Russians.
Yet, despite the bullets still flying and weeks after Mr Trump’s brag that the whole thing would be solved within a day, a rather simplistic blueprint for peace has been produced by America’s special envoy to Ukraine.
Despite the fact that peace is a very long way off, the 80 year old retired lieutenant general, Keith Kellogg, seems to have leaked his proposals under the headline that Ukraine might be partitioned like Berlin was after Germany’s surrender in 1945.
We first heard about such a plan some months ago. There have been a number of changes and additions, though, the most important of which is the deployment of European NATO troops from Sir Keir’s much vaunted ‘Coalition of the Willing’.
Broadly, Gen Kellogg sees the fighting being stopped more or less where the front lines are at the moment. In the south that would mean the line of the River Dneiper and then, where the river doglegs north west towards Kiev, the line would wiggle northwards towards the Russian/Ukrainian border somewhere east of Kharkov city.
Then, an 18 mile wide ‘demilitarised zone’ would separate the opponents, which would be monitored by Ukrainian troops and overseen by NATO aircraft and satellites. A lot further west, though, would be French, British and other ‘willing’ nations’ forces who would be both ready to react to incursions and act as a muscular deterrent.
But crucially, Kellogg has clearly stated that there is no plan for the involvement of US troops. Similarly, Messrs. Macron and Starmer have said that their warriors might prove rather less willing to get their hands dirty without US ‘security guarantees’. Now, exactly what those guarantees are can only be guessed at, but America has yet to provide any clues.
The Kellogg Concept has its weaknesses - more of which later - but at least it’s a starting point. Unfortunately, the author and his staff’s lack of historical knowledge has caused a right old rumpus. Comparing this solution to that of post war Berlin can be interpreted as comparing Kiev’s position to a defeated Nazi Germany whilst Moscow could be cast as the victorious Allies.
Further umbrage has been caused by the fact that Kellogg’s design revolves around two, equal partners - Russia and the USA - with little consultation with the rest of NATO and scant attention to President Zelensky’s views. By implication, the plan makes Russia look more like a victor rather than an aggressor; it’s not been a great start for the General.
Meanwhile, whilst the midnight oil has been burnt in headquarters around the West with aerial photographs and satellite images being poured over (all liberally stamped ‘Top Secret’ until they’re accidentally-on-purpose leaked to the press), no one seems to have been listening to the deeply experienced Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov.
He must have stroked his chin when looking at the Whitehouse’s plans and shown a little academic interest before, in perfect English, utterly scorning it. His first point is that Russia will continue to mount offensives and seize land until her conditions are met. Those boil down to: no NATO membership for Ukraine ever; no discussion with Zelensky - there must be a new regime put in place; and a post war Ukraine must have only very modest forces and never have access to nuclear weapons.
Second - and unequivocally - Mr Lavrov said that NATO forces stationed in Ukraine were unacceptable no matter whether they painted themselves as peacekeepers or not. Russia would have no hesitation in attacking them.
Meanwhile, extraordinarily, NATO top brass, led by Britain and France, have now drawn up plans for their intervention in Ukraine, despite the very bloody reception that they will certainly receive. Despite this, our defence secretary, John Healey, sounds confident about the whole chimera. This ignores the fact that he’s already stated that our barely noticeable forces are incapable of fighting a war and that there are no US security guarantees.
And what sort of reaction will the government get when large numbers of our troops are killed or wounded? Has everyone forgotten the nation’s hurt and grief when our warriors paid the ultimate price in our last wars? But this won’t be a trickle of coffins such as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’ll be a deluge. If anyone doubts that, ask a Ukrainian.
Then there’s something else that has come to light which makes all the planning and war gaming laughable. In preparation for a deployment of a few thousand soldiers, our tiny force in Estonia has had further manpower taken away from it. Already there are no heavy guns and vanishingly few tanks there, but now the only unit near the Russian border has been weakened even further. Wake up, Sir Keir, you simply have neither the kit nor the muscle to play soldiers.
Patrick Mercer is a former MP for Newark and Army colonel.