A decades-long failure to take Vladimir Putin’s warnings at face value has proven dangerously counterproductive. Putin has made it clear that Nato’s eastward expansion is perceived as an existential threat to Russia, using it as justification for his invasion of Ukraine. Despite this, Keir Starmer persists in advocating for Nato peacekeepers in Ukraine – a proposal destined to fail and which risks squandering precious time Ukraine does not have.
When Foreign Secretary David Lammy declares that Putin should have no veto over security arrangements, he denies the fundamental reality of peace negotiations. Of course, Putin does hold an effective veto: no ceasefire can take hold without Russia’s agreement, just as it cannot without Ukraine’s.
The question is the cost each side is willing to bear to withhold its signature.
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in