Latest news with #Minsk3.0
Voice of America
15-02-2025
- Politics
- Voice of America
Carafano: 'A free, independent Ukraine is in America's best interest'
James Carafano, senior counselor to the president and national security expert at The Heritage Foundation, responsible for its defense and foreign policy team, spoke with VOA's Ukraine Service about the Trump administration's goals and considerations in the negotiation process to achieve peace in Ukraine. He explained that while not a vital interest, a free and independent Ukraine that can defend itself is in America's best interests, and he outlined how to achieve this goal. Voice of America: How do you and The Heritage Foundation see ending the war in Ukraine, and what is the strategy behind it? James Carafano, The Heritage Foundation: It is in America's best interest that there be a free and independent Ukraine that can defend itself. And the reason for that is the United States. The United States is a global power with global interests and global responsibilities. A peaceful Europe, whole, free and at peace, that is a vital American interest. The transit Atlantic community is important to us. And the number one threat, physical threat to that is the destabilizing actions of Russia. And the most concerning and destabilizing action is the security of the Eastern front of NATO and Ukraine, that is free and independent, that can defend itself is an obstacle to the Russians, whether it's in NATO or not. Now, to be honest, it's not a vital interest in the United States. For the practical matter is, the United Europe can defend itself and the United States can defend Europe if Ukraine's occupied by Russia. Now having said that, are we way better off? I mean, way, way better off with the Russians on the other side of Ukraine? And the answer is "absolutely." At this point, what is in America's interest is that the war stops and that there is a ceasefire that is both from a strategic perspective to preserve Ukraine, and that we have to be realistic about Ukraine's capacity to recover territory that's been occupied. But also from a humanitarian perspective, and I think this is very deeply reflected in our president. More Ukrainians dying is never going to reconquer all of Ukrainian territory. A war of attrition is never going to create a stronger Ukraine. I think everybody is focused on what the deal looks like. I think the deals are relevant. Stopping the war is the objective. The real question is, what do we do the day after the war to ensure there's a free and independent Ukraine in the future? VOA: The defense secretary said we don't want Minsk 3.0. Are we falling into the trap of Munich 2.0, where we appease the dictator, give away territories, embolden the aggressor, and end up in a world war? Carafano: I don't think that's the peace that the U.S. envisions. So, I'll tell you what appeasement would be. Appeasement would be giving the Russians something at the negotiating table that they didn't win on the battlefield. That's appeasement. Recognizing that the Russians have territory they have and the inability of the Ukraine [forces] to retake that territory — maybe they trade territory, I don't know — that's called being realistic. VOA: If Russia is allowed to keep its spoils of war, what message would it send to other would-be aggressors? Carafano: That Russia has failed. Russia's goal was to conquer and destroy Ukraine. It failed. Russia's goal was to have NATO fall apart. It failed. If Russia is stopped in Ukraine, and look what they have achieved, they've achieved some marginal territorial gains at the cost of destroying the Russian army, crippling the Russian economy, and making themselves a global pariah. If that's a victory, it's a kind of really weird Pyrrhic victory. VOA: Then, why would [Defense Secretary] Pete Hegseth articulate these concessions? Carafano: They're not concessions. They are statements of reality. We all know it's true. If you give Putin something at the negotiation table that he wasn't able to take on the battlefield, that is a concession. So, if for example you said, Ukraine has to give up the sovereignty of its territory even its occupied territory, I would say that's a really bad deal. That's a concession. We have never ever forced any country to actually give up the sovereignty of its territory." VOA: What about [Ukraine`s membership] in NATO? Here is a counterargument: Why Russia should have a veto power over NATO? Carafano: First of all, Hegseth has never said Russia should have a veto power over the entry of Ukraine into NATO. Hegseth has said, "This is not going to be part of the negotiation and Ukraine is not going to get into NATO now." That's no different from the Biden policy and that's actually just a reflection of reality. NATO is a consensus organization. Every member has to agree. Every member does not agree. So, we all know, the Russians know, we know, everybody in NATO knows, Ukraine is not going to get NATO membership now." VOA: What about the future? Carafano: He didn't say that Ukraine shouldn't join NATO in the future. He just said that NATO membership is not going to be part of the negotiation. VOA: So, the main issue here is security guarantees. Carafano: That's also wrong. Somehow that we're going to say something that's going deter Putin in the future. That's nonsense and ridiculous. What's going to deter Putin in the future is, does Ukraine have the capacity to defend itself? VOA: So how do we deter the Russians? Carafano: We have a Ukraine as a country that can defend itself and that is free, and its economy grows, and it builds a defense industrial base. And we strengthen NATO because that will equally deter the Russians. And we do the other things, which by the way Donald Trump is going to do already, whether there's a peace deal or not. Donald Trump is going to put a lot of pressure on the Russians. He's going to lower the price of oil. He's going to increase sanctions. He's going to [do] a lot of things that are going to hamstring the Russian economy. Russia is going to be weaker. He's going to do a lot of things to go after the Iranians. So, the Iranians are going to have a lot less capacity to support the Russians. He's going to do a lot of things to put a lot of pressure on the Chinese. The Chinese are going to be less able to support the Russians. Donald Trump can do a lot to North Korea. Regardless of what happens in the actual peace deal in Ukraine, Trump is going to do a lot to the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans and the Iranians that really diminishes their capacity to sustain this war.
Telegraph
13-02-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Trump and Hegseth are half right. We cannot have Minsk 3.0
US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth was half right when he announced today in Brussels that negotiations over the future of Ukraine 'must not be a Minsk 3.0.' He is right that the fiasco of Minsk cannot be repeated, but wrong to write off Nato membership and the US security guarantee in Europe. According to Hegseth, Ukraine's security will have to be guaranteed by 'European and non-European troops' - but not the US military, and not under the umbrella of Nato or Article 5. Hegseth said that the primary burden of supporting Ukraine and of European security more broadly must fall on Europe itself, as America is 'prioritising deterring war with China in the Pacific.' He praised Nato members such as Poland which are meeting the alliance's five per cent defence spending target. Hegseth's statement comes as President Trump announced the results of a 'highly productive' 90-minute phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, during which the two agreed to begin negotiations over Ukraine 'immediately.' The original Minsk agreements were failures precisely because they provided no real backing for Ukraine, only a phony ceasefire and endless talks while Russia continued to bolster rebels in the Donbass. The Trump administration is right that the new negotiations must not become a third Minsk, but it is wrong to take Ukrainian Nato membership off the table. No matter what Putin's propaganda may say, it is clear that he fears the Western alliance. In its imperial quest to rebuild the Soviet 'sphere of influence' Russia has attacked Moldova, Georgia, and now Ukraine, all countries lacking the protection of Nato membership. Clearly, Nato membership is a powerful deterrent; it is also one which Russia has no grounds to object to. After all, the United States makes no demands as to the membership of Russia's Collective Security Treaty Organisation. The Trump administration risks disarming itself of a key source of leverage before negotiations even begin. In order to bargain effectively with Putin, the US must understand how he thinks. The President must avoid attributing to the Kremlin such behavior as he would attribute to Washington and instead seek to understand his opponent's mind games. Putin understands that Trump wants to be perceived as a 'deal broker' who can, unlike his predecessor, create 'peace through strength.' He is not, therefore, opposed to giving Trump the 'gift' of freezing the conflict as a means of gaining his trust. However, he also believes he can get more by continuing to fight, and so any ceasefire that does not agree to all his terms will be considered temporary. The Trump administration must understand that Putin will turn negotiations into 'Minsk 3.0' if given any opportunity, and that the only language he understands is power. Washington should maintain the powerful sanctions regime which has punished the Russian economy thus far. The Trump administration should continue to ensure a well armed Ukraine capable of fending off Russia on the ground, making it too costly for Moscow to achieve its objectives. If the Trump administration mishandles Ukraine, it risks undermining the 'pivot to Asia' which Hegseth cites as the main driver of his policy approach. China will be watching and learning from the strength of US commitments in Europe. And while Trump is right that Europe can and should take on more responsibilities for its own security, this cannot mean leaving the continent unsupported. Otherwise, America will inevitably be brought back into Europe's instability, which will be even more costly.
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
This is Putin and Trump's world now
Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. Since the invasion, that has been an American mantra – the promise not to indulge in Russia's game of carving up third countries between the two superpowers. Not any more. In what Donald Trump called a 'highly productive' phone call, he and Vladimir Putin 'agreed to have our respective teams start negotiations immediately'. If that is what happened, it is a great victory for Putin's world view. The Russian president has always believed that only those countries that decide the fate of others can be truly sovereign. He has always been determined that Russia would be one of the great powers – along with the United States and China – qualified to carve the rest of the world up between them. That is why he always wanted to talk to Washington, not Kyiv, about the fate of Ukraine. Anything else would be a humiliation. Yet a victory for Putin's ego is not the same as a victory in the war. At least, it does not have to be. Pete Hegseth, Mr Trump's secretary of defence, drew the outline of the US president's vision of peace in blunt terms during Wednesday's meeting with Nato defence ministers. Occupied territory will not be given back to Ukraine, he said – implying a freeze along the current line of contact. Ukraine will receive neither Nato membership nor an Article Five security guarantee. And absolutely no US troops will be involved in the peace-keeping force. That's a grim deal that will reward Russia with stolen land and leave Ukraine vulnerable to a second attack in years to come. But Mr Hegseth also called for security guarantees sufficient to deter another Russian attack, acknowledging it cannot be 'Minsk 3.0' – a reference to two previous peace deals that Russia used to regroup before attacking again. If that promise is kept; if Ukraine holds on to Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson and Dnipro; above all if it remains free and becomes prosperous; then the Ukrainian people can be said to have won. Yes, at horrific cost and with an imperfect peace – but nonetheless, they will have won, and they will have a future. Britain and the other allies who have stood with them since the invasion began will also be able to claim a part of that victory. But there is a catch. As Mr Trump has made clear, and Mr Hegseth spelt out in language even a child could understand, America is not interested in underwriting either Ukrainian or European security. So the shape of the peace will depend on Europe – and that includes Britain. Sir Keir Starmer and his peers across the Channel must decide whether they want to choose the fate of their continent, or allow Moscow and Washington to do it for them. It means massive investment in their armed forces and defence industries in order to deter a future Russian attack, not only on Ukraine, but on European Nato itself. It will mean hard trade-offs and politically difficult spending decisions. But it is doable. Ukraine has the largest, most battle-hardened and capable army in Europe. If Britain and other allies live up to their word, they could mount a credible defence of the Continent from the Black Sea to the Barents and from Kharkiv to County Kerry (Ireland's neutrality will also depend on that European deterrent working in the event of American retreat). The alternative probably looks like this: Putin would return to Ukraine in a few years, and take Kharkiv and Kyiv. He would then invade a Nato country, reassured that the alliance will not live up to its rhetoric of collective defence. He would quite likely be proven correct. Britain and Europe will then live in what Russian diplomats like to call 'a new European security architecture'. It will be a place where Putin's view of the strong carving up the weak will hold sway. There is no excuse for surprise here. Mr Trump's rhetoric has been consistent. The shift of American focus to the Pacific began under Barack Obama. American impatience with European freeloading predates even him. American annoyance is now compounded by a thaw between Washington and Moscow. Mr Trump said that he and Putin had agreed to visit one another's countries. The cordon sanitaire Western countries threw around Moscow in a bid to isolate the Russian president is gaping open. Outward unity was, until now, one of Nato's greatest strengths. Less than an hour before Mr Hegseth's address to the Ukraine Defence Contact Group – more than 50 allies co-ordinating aid to Kyiv – Mark Rutte, Nato's secretary-general, offered a public warning about negotiating with Putin. 'We can easily brainstorm about the best way forward…but let's not make him wiser than he is already,' Mr Rutte told a news conference. Some in Nato will welcome the admissions made by Mr Hegseth on Ukraine, however. German diplomats have long expressed scepticism about Ukraine taking back all of its land, not to mention the wisdom of Nato membership. Volodymyr Zelensky has not been taken by surprise. He remarked the day before that he feared being cut out of American and Russian deliberations. The war is not over yet. Mr Zelensky is a capable and highly motivated statesman who will use every opportunity to win the best deal for Ukraine that he can. There is still much to play for, and the grim, inevitable rules of war mean that the fighting at the front will only intensify as a ceasefire looms closer. Meanwhile, Britain and Europe must ask whether they to want to be at the table – or on the menu. It is decision time. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pentagon chief says Ukraine's NATO accession and return to pre-2014 borders are unrealistic
The new US Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, said on 12 February that a return to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is not a realistic goal, and that the US does not consider NATO membership for Ukraine a realistic outcome of a peaceful settlement of the war. Source: Hegseth in his speech at a meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group (also known as the Ramstein Group) in Brussels, as reported by European Pravda Details: Hegseth said US President Donald Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine through diplomatic means. He stressed that this issue must be viewed from a realistic perspective. Quote: "We will only end this devastating war and establish a durable peace... with a realistic assessment of the battlefield. We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. But we must start by recognising that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective." Details: The Pentagon chief added that pursuing this delusional goal would only prolong the war and suffering. He said that a lasting peace in Ukraine must be based on strong security guarantees to ensure that the war does not start again: "This must not be Minsk 3.0." In this context, he said that "the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement". Instead, he added, any security guarantees must be backed by capable European and non-European troops. Quote: "If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers in Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission and they should not be covered under Article 5. There also must be robust international oversight of the line of contact." Details: He added that "there will not be US troops deployed to Ukraine" as part of any security guarantee. Background: Media reports suggest the new US Defense Secretary will not announce new arms supplies for Ukrainian soldiers at the Ramstein meeting. The Pentagon chief is expected to reaffirm President Trump's commitment to a diplomatic end to the war in Ukraine as soon as possible. Support UP or become our patron!
Euronews
12-02-2025
- Politics
- Euronews
Ukraine's return to pre-2014 borders and NATO membership are 'unrealistic,' Hegseth tells allies
Ukraine's desired return to its pre-2014 borders and membership in NATO are "unrealistic" goals that should be excluded from any future peace settlement, US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth told allies on Wednesday as he stressed President Donald Trump's intent to end Russia's war "by diplomacy". His remarks were made during a meeting in Brussels of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, consisting of 46 nations. "We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. But we must start by recognising that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering," Hegseth told his counterparts. "A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again. This must not be Minsk 3.0," he added, referring to the ill-fated agreement that failed to end the Donbas war. "That said, the United States does not believe that NATO's membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. Instead, any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops." Hegseth added that American troops would not be part of any peacekeeping mission in Ukraine to guarantee the stability of the prospective peace deal and that such a mission would not be covered by NATO's Article 5 of collective defence.
