West did ‘too little’ when Putin first invaded Ukraine, say Healey and Lammy
The West did “too little” when Russian President Vladimir Putin first invaded Ukraine in 2014, David Lammy and John Healey have suggested.
The Foreign and Defence Secretaries called on the UK and Europe to “do more” to “share the burden” of regional security in a joint article for the Daily Telegraph.
They also said that a “durable peace” would need a “continuing US commitment to its allies through Nato”, as world leaders prepared to meet again on Saturday at the Munich Security Conference.
War
The war in Ukraine has dominated the agenda at the gathering in Germany, in the week that US President Donald Trump said he has agreed with Mr Putin to start “negotiations” to end the conflict.
Meeting US vice president JD Vance on Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he wants “security guarantees” ahead of peace talks.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told Mr Zelensky that Britain is committed to Ukraine being on an “irreversible path” to joining Nato, after the US appeared to rule out its membership.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Mr Healey and Mr Lammy said that for two decades the Russian leader has been “seeking to recreate the Russian empire and suffocate the countries around its borders”.
“Too often in the past, the West has let him,” they added. “We did too little in 2008 when he invaded Georgia, and in 2014 when he first went into Ukraine.”
Mr Trump’s administration has been calling for Nato members to spend 5% of GDP on defence, and Mr Lammy and Mr Healey said that “we have been clear that Europe and the UK must do more together to share the burden of our continent’s security”.
“Europe is united on the need to step up. We are – and we will,” they added.
Mr Trump said he had spoken to Mr Putin on Wednesday and agreed to “work together, very closely” to bring an end to the war as it nears its three-year anniversary.
Peace
The UK has been clear that talks about a peace deal must involve Ukraine, amid fears in western capitals of Washington and Moscow negotiating European security over the heads of leaders on the continent.
Mr Lammy and Mr Healey wrote in the Telegraph that “a durable peace must be based on new security arrangements: Europe doubling down to do more on our own continent’s security; a continuing, long-term US commitment to its allies through Nato; and British support to the US and allies in the Indo-Pacific.”
Both ministers have been in Germany for the security gathering, and Mr Lammy will take part in sessions on Europe’s geopolitical role and a plan for Ukraine on Saturday.
The UK will also co-host a roundtable discussion with Italy on migration, with representatives expected from the Netherlands, Poland, Bulgaria, Germany and others.
Mr Zelensky met US vice president JD Vance on Friday, and said he was “thankful” for US support but wanted guarantees on security,
“We want, really, we want peace very much. But we need real security guarantees,” he told broadcasters.
Mr Lammy discussed the conflict in a separate meeting with Mr Vance.
Speaking to broadcasters after the meeting he said “we are some way from a negotiated peace” and pledged the UK’s continued support for Ukraine.
He said he and the vice president “share the view that there has to be an enduring peace” and agreed that Ukraine would “have to be part of that negotiated deal”.
The Foreign Secretary also described his meeting with Mr Vance as “very good” and that they built on “the special relationship that the United States and the UK enjoy”.
Support
He added: “Negotiations have not yet begun. These are talks, if you like, about talks, and we will continue to support Ukraine.”
Mr Vance sought to play down the prospect of a split between Washington and Westminster, saying at the start of the meeting the “special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States will remain very strong”.
The US has suggested that Kyiv must accept it will have to give up some territory to the Kremlin, and that the country joining Nato was unrealistic.
A former Nato secretary general estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 troops could be needed as part of a peacekeeping force in Ukraine, including Britons.
Speaking to the BBC’s Newsnight on Friday night, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that Nato membership would be the “most efficient and […] the least expensive way to ensure the future security of Ukraine”.
On the US’ stance on Ukraine and Nato, he said: “We should create a coalition of the willing under the leadership of France and the UK, to provide security guarantees for Ukraine and deploy troops on Ukrainian soil.”
Earlier on Friday the Prime Minister spoke to Mr Zelensky and reiterated the UK’s position on a Nato spot for Ukraine, in an intervention that contrasts with Washington’s position that membership for Kyiv is not a realistic prospect.
Focus
In a readout of his conversation with Mr Zelensky, a Downing Street spokeswoman said: “The Prime Minister began by reiterating the UK’s concrete support for Ukraine, for as long as it’s needed.
“He was unequivocal that there could be no talks about Ukraine, without Ukraine.
“The Prime Minister reiterated the UK’s commitment to Ukraine being on an irreversible path to Nato, as agreed by allies at the Washington Summit last year.”
The leaders agreed it was an “important moment to demonstrate international unity and support for Ukraine” and “agreed to stay in close contact”, and that Kyiv needs further lethal aid and a sovereign future, the statement added.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.
Too little too late from the now marginalised disarmed irrelevant UK.
It does look like Trump is going to force Ukraine to give up territory to end the war. He’ll probably sweeten it by offering major investment in the country (I expect by mining the rare earth metals the US wants). Once the war is over the Ukrainians need more troops on the ground, including those from European countries if further advances into the country are to be prevented, in the future, by Russia. Appeasement did little to stop Hitler in the 1930s it’ll do little to stop Putin now.
Lammy, look behind you, it is the Fat Shanks Effect, the scumbag was just one traitor, the years of Londongrad…
Westminster, the Inns of Court and the City with a shut down MI5 Russia Desk helped no end…@Lemmy not Lammy…
I know that this is going to get a lot of downvotes but if there was one good thing about Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher was that they would never have backed down or give in to appeasement, and would be absolutely horrified as to what the right wing in their respective countries have evolved into. Can you imagine if Trump had been President in 1940, would he have negotiated a deal with the Nazis without consulting Churchill or force Churchill to make concessions to Hitler?
He would have been shot by MI6, they were all over the yanks in 1940…
‘Wild Bill Donovan’ and the OSS was a British invention, the CIA was created in 1947…
The brutal reality is that this is a war Ukraine 🇺🇦 could never win, and a war Russia 🇷🇺 could never lose—unless it chooses to. With the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world, and a bunker full of hypersonic missiles in Kaliningrad capable of obliterating this country and other major Western capitals in minutes, the power dynamics are stark. The grotesque spectacle of middle-class commentator George Monbiot on Question Time suggesting that Ukraine’s youth should continue fighting is utterly misguided. On this issue, I find myself completely aligned with Donald Trump—both sides are nearing 100,000 military casualties, and… Read more »
The casualties from closing USAID will soar past the present conflict…
Whataboutisms does not make a valid argument, as two wrongs don’t make a right. Any form of Imperialism must be condemned irrespective of who commits it. Yes the US and UK historically violated the territorial integrity of Cuba and Ireland respectively, but not mean Russia should be allowed to do the same in the 2020s Most people in Wales are linguistically English speakers or have some form of English ethnicity, should that mean England should be allowed to annex parts of Wales if the UK breaks up? If people want to be part of another country than they can move… Read more »
Rebrand NATO as the European Defense Force and suspend American membership. They are no longer a trusted partner.
Agreed, but should include Canada as well.
Had Ukraine abided by the terms of the Minsk Agreement and had the CIA not orchestrated the coup in Kiev in 2014 which led to the civil war this could have all been avoided.