Dr. David Bennett argues that given the lack of current Anglo-French resolve that Sweden, Poland and Finland should expeditiously consider intervening militarily in the Russo-Ukrainian War to save both the Ukrainian people and Europe from Russian domination.

The recent Ukrainian drone attack (in June 2025) which destroyed millions of dollars’ worth of Russian military aircraft (43 nuclear capable bombers) may lead to an inaccurate perspective that Ukraine can win its war of independence without external military intervention.  Unfortunately, the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is tenacious, and he knows that time is ultimately on his nation’s side.  This is because Russia has a substantially larger population and military economy to draw on to replenish its military manpower and equipment losses so that the Russian Federation can eventually prevail militarily against Ukraine.

It will take Russia a long time to subdue a conquered Ukraine, but after Moscow has achieved this, Russia will be able to exploit Ukraine as a launching base to invade Central and Eastern Europe.  Because of the neo-isolationist policy of the United States, the possibility of an effective American military assistance to a Europe threatened by a Russian invasion is somewhat dubious.

The necessary European unity required to counter Russian invasions of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) continental nations will alas, be in considerable doubt as a result of a Moscow induced domestic political discord within NATO member states. Romania is currently a case in point where recent Russian disruption has brought that NATO nation to the brink of civil war.  Hungary is also of dubious resolve.

Social Action Australia (SAA) has previously advocated that France (‘Why France Must Lead the Struggle to Save Ukraine’) should take the lead in co-ordinating a direct European NATO military intervention in Ukraine against the Russian Federation to save the Ukrainian people.  Unfortunately. France is currently wracked by political instability as this nation is bedevilled by strong far-right and far-left forces which are both pro-Putin!

Even in Great Britain there is a potentially strong far-right political force in the form of Nigel Farage’s UK Reform Party which could displace the Conservative Party as the main opposition after the next British general election. Such an outcome could provide the basis for there eventually being a Farage led Euro-sceptic government which would probably allow Russia a free hand to re-assert its dominance in Central and Eastern Europe and very possibly go onto threaten Finland and the Scandinavian nations.

This preceding scenario of future Russian aggression in Europe following its ultimately probable conquest of Ukraine is as frightening as it is viable.  Consequently, Putin must be stopped now by direct foreign military intervention in the Russo-Ukrainian War before it is too late.  Although Britain is currently revamping its military nuclear deterrent, London (along with Paris) will not lead the charge to help save Ukraine via direct military intervention due to their previously cited respective domestic political weaknesses. 

The Trio of Nations

The three European nations (The Trio of Nations) which have the combined and current military capacity to expeditiously save Ukraine via direct military intervention should Russia launch a massive 2025 Spring Offensive are Sweden, Poland and Finland.  These three nations have distinct respective military strengths which if combined and co-ordinated could rescue the Ukrainian people and ultimately Central and Eastern Europe from Russian conquest.

Sweden is one of the world’s most technologically militarily advanced military forces.  This kingdom arguably has the world’s best fighter aircraft, the SAAB Grippen warplanes. Swedish naval power is also outstanding in that the Swedes possess very advanced non-nuclear sub-marines considered by many to be significantly superior to those of Russia.

It would be unfair to expect Sweden to alone directly militarily intervene to help save Ukraine should the Russian Federation launch a massive 2025 Spring Offensive.   Alternately, it would be naïve to expect either Britian or France despatch significant forces of ground troops as well as well as utilizing its naval and air power due to the respective political situations in both of these nations.

Therefore, Poland and Finland will hopefully join with Sweden to come to Ukraine’s defence. Both Poland and Finland have experience in fighting against Russian military aggression in the 1930s and 1940s. These two nations now have formidable armed forces, -which if soon deployed- in the context of advanced Swedish technological military technology being applied - could provide Ukraine with a conventional military advantage which Putin would not be able to overcome.

There is of course also the acute concern that if there is direct military intervention by foreign powers to save Ukraine, that Putin’s Russia will retaliate by unleashing its tactical nuclear weapons.  However, should this frightening scenario come to pass, then Britian and France would hopefully respond (in spite of domestic political divisions) in kind against Russia so that this should serve as a deterrent to Putin.

The best form of proactive maintenance to prevent Europe descending into nuclear conflict while at the time thwarting possible future Russian aggression in Europe by saving Ukraine is for The Trio of Nations to communicate their preparedness to directly militarily intervene to save Ukraine.  Such a communication could be the catalyst for Russia to quickly agree to an American mediated ceasefire as a prelude to an internationally negotiated peace settlement.

Europe in 2025 stands at a very similar position to that occupied by the British and French in 1938 as they contemplated the Nazi German demand for the surrender of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. The Allies were cowed by the prospect of a renewal of the warfare that had ended in 1918, and they missed their opportunity.

Had they been able to look back from the viewpoint of 1945, what decision would they have made? There is little doubt that had the Allies resisted the Nazis in 1938, at that point the French forces could have rolled into  Germany and brought the Nazis undone and as a result of that in 1945  they would not have been confronted with a powerful, dictatorial Soviet Union / Russia staring back at them from an Eastern Europe oppressed by an iron curtain spread across their continent. Nor would Europe have had to contemplate the almost incomprehensible carnage and destruction that had occurred in the war.

Europe is at a similar sliding door right now!

If the Russian / Ukraine War shows nothing else, it is that had NATO or even some of its members opposed Russia from the start they would have easily defeated the invaders. It is still possible to achieve that outcome now. The major reason for the timidity of NATO / Western Europe is their concern with the threat of Russia utilising its stockpile of nuclear weapons (allied to Putin’s belief that the NATO nations would never have the gumption to use such ordnance themselves).

If this is true, then NATO is doomed. If Russia succeeds in this belief, then they will use it to advance to ultimately recover its lost European empire. However, it is possible that a firm resolve by NATO now will terminate this Russian nuclear threat. If the Russian nuclear weapons threat is used successfully at this time, then it will continue to be used by Russia until they finally feel compelled to actually use it – and then all will be lost.

We are now at the equivalent of the 1938 Sudetenland opportunity.

Dr. David Bennett argues why French leadership is so important with regard to saving Ukraine. 

The Russo-Ukrainian War (2022- ) is unfortunately heading in the direction of a Russian victory. Russian President Vladimir Putin is already drafting over one-hundred and sixty-thousand men to go to the Ukrainian front so that Ukraine can be knocked out of the war in an offensive which will probably be launched by no later than July of this year.  It is difficult to envisage that the beleaguered and depleted Ukrainians by then will then have sufficient manpower to resist this offensive so that they will consequently lose their independence. 

Should Ukraine fall, Russia will have a geographic base with which to proceed to militarily conquer other central and eastern European nations as well as the countries which constitute Scandinavia.  Putin will of course try to reassure European nations that he has no aggressive designs against them as he subdues a conquered Ukraine. 

However, with the United States probably becoming an isolationist nation, the Russians will be able to proceed on further wars of conquest.  There is the calculation that because the Ukrainians have ‘bought time’ for Europe that the European nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will be ready to effectively resist any future Russian aggression after Kyiv has fallen.   

The above flawed premise pre-supposes that the Europeans will be sufficiently united to withstand Russian disruption tactics which have already upended previous post-1945 orthodoxies in international affairs such as that the United States would defend Europe against any future Russian military aggression. 

Just as Putin successfully helped engineer the 2016 election of Donald Trump as US president, which has helped lead to the fundamental shift in American foreign  policy, the Russian leader has the strategic and tactical skill to re-orientate the politics of individual European nations.   It is therefore not beyond the realms of future possibility that Putin could encourage Hungary’s pro-Russian government to disrupt the territorial status-quo in Europe. 

There are already signs that Türkiye’s pro-Putin president, Recep Erdogan is becoming an outright dictator as a prelude to undertaking future territorial expansion in the Middle East.

The fundamental point which needs to be made at this juncture is that the dynamics of European nations can be exploited by Putin so that Russia will be able to engineer European dis-unity thereby facilitating further wars of conquest by Moscow.  This process of engineering discord and consequent conquest in Europe by Russia is not an easy one, but Putin has the demonstrated political skill to accomplish this. 

                                                                                                                                                                      Why the French Connection is so Important! 

France is a nation which is particularly vulnerable to Putin’s disruption tactics.  Alas, France has a pro-Putin far-right which could be elected to power in the future. Should France have a future Eurosceptic government then it is not beyond the realms of possibility that such a regime could adopt a position (similar to that of the Trump administration) regarding Russian conquest, which ranges from being accepting to being supportive. 

The application of Russian disruption tactics to French politics cannot be discounted because France is the main nation in Europe which can facilitate the European unity which will be necessary if Russian aggression is to be successfully countered. This is because France has an independent nuclear deterrent which can be utilized to deter Russia from resorting to the application of its tactical nuclear weapons.

Alas, Great Britain does not have an independent nuclear deterrent because for London to operate its Trident nuclear missiles requires American technical assistance and therefore US permission.  Given the Trump administration’s pro-Putin stance this American support for Britian applying its nuclear deterrent might not be forthcoming. 

Nevertheless, Britian can still help France to garner a European Coalition of the Willing to save Ukraine.  However, such a coalition will have to be assembled relatively quickly while the war still rages in Ukraine.  This is because the future onset of Russian disruption tactics to fatally undermine European unity cannot be discounted.

It might be pointed out that Paris and London have already assembled a European Coalition of the Willing.  Unfortunately, this coalition is operating on the incorrect premise that there will be an American mediated settlement to the Russo-Ukrainian War which will allow for the deployment of coalition (‘Re-Assurance’) troops in Ukraine following a peace settlement.  

However, due to the Trump administration’s neo-isolationist agenda, the Americans will only string the Europeans along with the false narrative that Washington will mediate with the Russians to reach a peace settlement to the Russo-Ukrainian War.  As the Trump administration plays for time, the Russians will launch their Spring military offensive which due to insufficient manpower, the Ukrainians will unfortunately succumb. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Why Time is of the Essence !

To prevent the above cited horrifying scenario from occurring, the European Coalition of the Willing should now deploy troops to western Ukraine while this war is currently under way. 

Because the Ukrainians are currently tying the Russians down in the east of their nation, the logistical challenges of deploying European troops in western Ukraine can be surmounted. Concerning the Trump administration’s anticipated hostility toward a European military deployment in western Ukraine, this can be achieved by simply ignoring Washington!

The deployment of European troops to western Ukraine will not necessarily mean that they immediately engage in military combat with the Russians because there will still be too much physical distance for this to occur. However, the arrival of European troops in western Ukraine will establish an effective practical physical barrier so that Russia cannot advance any further into Europe. 

                                                                                                                                                                                  A Diplomatic Solution?  Putting the Horse Before the Cart

The prompt deployment of European troops in western Ukraine does not mean that a diplomatic solution to the Russo-Ukrainian War should not be sought.  However, neither the Putin regime nor the Trump administration want to negotiate a diplomatic solution to the Russo-Ukrainian War so that pressure must be brought to bear on them both to end this war of aggression. 

Russia is currently in a beleaguered military state, but Putin is marshalling fresh resources to launch a new offensive against Ukraine.  Consequently, while Europe is still relatively militarily strong enough, the Coalition of the Willing must utilize its current capacity to save Ukraine. 

This scenario will hopefully occur under French leadership because France possesses an independent nuclear deterrent.  The existence of this French nuclear deterrent will help facilitate the deployment of European Coalition of the Willing troops to western Ukraine so that further Russian aggression can be blocked in Europe.   

It should not be forgotten that the Russians might have overrun Europe in the early 1920s had it not been for Poland’s victory in the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921.  This Polish victory came with the invaluable French assistance which included the despatch of a brilliant young French army officer named Charles De Gaulle.  Furthermore, Nazi Germany might have been quickly defeated in 1938/1939 had France not abandoned its Central European allies of the Little Entente by signing up to the disastrous Munich Agreement that year.  

So, in a simialr vein France must not miss the opportunity of standing up to tyrants by appeasing them.  This is now  particularly the case because the United States cannot be relied upon to come to Europe's aid against Russia.  For this reason, France must take the lead in helping save Ukraine.  

So, in a similar vein, France must not miss the opportunity of standing up to tyrants by appeasing them.  This is now particularly the case because the United States cannot be relied upon to come Europe’s aid against Putin’s Russia.  For this reason, France must take the lead in helping to save Ukraine. 

This article by Dr. David Bennett argues that the American abandonment of Europe requires that the European Coalition of the Willing be prepared militarily to defend Ukraine unless there is an immediate cease-fire in the Russo-Ukrainian War followed by an international peace conference to end this war which involves European nations. 

The public incident that occurred in the White House on February 28^th, 2025, in which US president, Donald J Trump and his vice-president, J.D Vance verbally abused Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky was the darkest chapter in the history of American foreign policy.   This public verbal attack on the Ukrainian president was a premeditated signal to the American public that the United States was going to cut off all military aid to Ukraine so that the Russian Federation could militarily over-run that country.

Fortunately, the American public did not ‘buy into’ this brazen betrayal of Ukraine so that the Trump administration belatedly returned to an official (but still dishonest) position of supporting this strategically vital European nation.  Consequently, very important intelligence sharing with the Ukraine of American satellite technology was quickly reinstated.  Alas, the supply of American weapons ammunition to Ukraine has not been resumed so that this nation can still be over-run by Russia in the next two months. 

The fall of Ukraine to the Russian Federation aligns with the Trump administration’s foreign policy agenda of dividing the world into spheres of influence between the United States, Russia and Communist China.   Even though Russia is in relative terms economically and militarily weak the Trump administration seems to be complicit in allowing Moscow to re-establish the old Soviet empire with Russian hegemony returning to eastern and central Europe.  Therefore, following the Russian conquest of Ukraine, the Putin regime will have the necessary territorial springboard with which to invade and occupy other European nations. 

Military strategists might point out that Russia has fought poorly in Ukraine so that European North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nations will be ready and united to resist any future Russian invasion.  According to this flawed logic, it will be ‘alright’ to allow Ukraine to fall to the Russian Federation because the Ukranians will have brought the Europeans enough time so that they will be sufficiently prepared to effectively counter any future Russian military threat. 

However, it should be pointed out that in the late 1990s and early 2000s the Russians had also fought poorly against the Caucasian republic of Chechnya but eventually prevailed due to Putin’s dogged persistence.  Indeed, had Russia not eventually militarily prevailed in Chechnya then Putin could not have successfully intervened in Georgia or launched his 2022 invasion of Ukraine.  

Following a Russian conquest of Ukraine, the Russian Federation will undoubtedly send out ‘peace feelers’ to threatened European nations to re-assure them that Moscow intends to respect Europe’s current territorial boundaries.  Nevertheless, Putin will still probe for weaknesses in European nations so that he can plan future invasions.  The ultimate protection which Europe has been able to rely upon since 1945, American military protection, will not be there.  

It is probable that Donald J Trump will not be the last of the so-called Make-America Great Again (MAGA) presidents so that US neo-isolationism will, alas, persist well into the twenty-first century.  Pan-Europeanists might consider continental unity to be the antidote to American abandonment borne of US neo-isolationism, but Putin has a proven track record of exploiting political divisions to seize opportunities. 

Already there are signs that the Russians are exploiting understandable Hungarian grievances dating back to the 1920 Treaty of Trianon so that European unity will not be sufficiently strong enough to compensate for the impending American abandonment of Europe should Ukraine fall. 

The current political turmoil which is also occurring in Romania is due to Russan political interference in that nation’s politics.  This political upheaval is testament to Russia’s effectiveness in destabilising nations and is an indicator that Europe will not have sufficient political unity to counter Russian aggression unless the European Coalition of the willing is prepared to militarily intervene in Ukraine in the coming weeks. 

Furthermore, the Russian Federation is also cultivating the regional ambitions of Türkiye’s quasi- authoritarian leader, President Recep Erdogan so that there will be another disrupter to European stability.  

Pan-European optimists might well argue that Anglo-French leadership might be sufficient to compensate for American abandonment of Europe, particularly as these countries are nuclear armed.  Unfortunately, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that these two nations, particularly France, could elect future far-right Eurosceptic governments which would give Putin a future free hand to do what he wants in central and eastern Europe as well as in Scandinavia and Finland. 

                                                                                                                                                                    Why Saving Ukraine will Save Europe

The above analysis is bleak but not irredeemably hopeless.  This is because the Russian military position in Ukraine can be reversed to favour the Ukrainians if a European Coalition of the Willing is quickly assembled to expeditiously militarily intervene in the Russo-Ukrainian War before or as Moscow’s launches its 2025 Spring Offensive.  

As evil as Russia’s Vladmir Putin is, he still has a highly analytical and calculating mind so that he will not resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons should European Coalition troops go into Ukraine to defend but not extend that nation’s borders.  Putin knows that Britain and France have the capacity to retaliate with their nuclear weapons should he resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons in response to European Coalition of the Willing *troops intervening in the Russo-Ukrainian War. 

(*German troops should not participate in the Coalition of the Willing because this might revive Russian memories of the Second World War so that Moscow might actually resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons.  Instead, Berlin, while still providing aid to the European Coalition of the Willing, should offer to diplomatically mediate to end the Russo-Ukrainian War). 

The intervention of European Coalition of the Willing troops in the Russo-Ukrainian War will have to be undertaken without American involvement due to the Trump administration’s complicity in supporting Putin’s attempt to conquer Ukraine.  Accordingly, US ploys to instigate joint American-Russian initiatives to achieve a cease-fire should be seen as just that- ploys.  The Americans and the Russians know that Ukraine now stands little chance of militarily surviving the onset of a 2025 Russian Spring Offensive so that all that Wahington and Moscow have to do now is to play for time. 

The nations of the European Coalition of the Willing should therefore as a matter of urgency publicly announce their preparedness to militarily intervene in the Russo-Ukrainian War unless there is an immediate ceasefire in this war.  A cease-fire announcement should be followed by Moscow and Washington agreeing to a genuine international peace conference to end the Russo-Ukrainian War which involves the European Coalition of the Willing.

                                                                                                                                                                                             Conclusion

Time is of the essence if Ukraine and therefore Europe is to be saved from Putin’s attempt to assert Russian dominance over this continent.  The assembling and despatch of troops to Ukraine belonging to a European Coalition of the Willing alas has to be undertaken without American involvement and/or support due to Trump’s abandonment of Europe.  This abandonment in effect constitutes American collusion with Putin’s attempt to revive a Russian empire which threatens to engulf all of Europe, not just the nations of the former Soviet bloc. 

The Russian military position in Ukraine is presently relatively weak so that the European Coalition of the Willing must go in now.  Due to this Russian military weakness, the Europeans can successfully militarily intervene without American support, including air cover.  However, this intervention must be quickly undertaken while Russia’s military position in Ukraine is still relatively weak. 

                         Dr. David Bennett re-assesses the Trump Administration’s Ukraine policy to advocate that Europe should, if necessarily, militarily intervene to save Ukraine. 

 Assumptions made in the previous Social Action Australia (SAA) article- ‘China’s Ukraine Trap’- require re-assessment in the wake of the Trump Administration’s action in recently terminating military aid (including invaluable intelligence sharing) with Ukraine.  Misassumptions were made in this previously published article concerning the motivation and the consequent willingness of the Trump Administration to genuinely mediate a quick settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian War (2022- ). 

Invoking the maxim ‘that actions speak louder than words’ the termination of American aid to Ukraine raises the spectre that the Trump Administration is actually colluding with the Russian Federation in its quest to conquer Ukraine.  President Donald J Trump may make the bizarre demand that Ukraine cede its rare earth resources to the United States in return for renewed American assistance, but this demand only buttresses the misimpression that the Americans are still prepared to eventually help Ukraine.

Alas, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky seems to be falling for this ruse by desperately trying to re-engage the Americans by offering them control of Ukraine’s rare earth resources.  However, the Ukrainian president and his European allies are only being ‘strung along’ by the Americans until the onset of the European spring this year when the Russian army can launch its final military offensive.

Given the termination of American military aid, it is difficult to envisage that Ukraine can survive the onset of a Russian Spring Offensive this year without European military assistance in the form of despatching troops to fight against the Russians.  British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron are assembling a ‘Coalition of the Willing’ of European nations which are prepared to send troops to Ukraine. 

However, this European military force is currently envisaged as a peace-keeping force for after a political settlement has been negotiated which ends the Russo-Ukrainian War.  The problem with this scenario is that it will be too late because the Russians will not negotiate a political settlement when the military advantage is now with Moscow due to the termination of American aid to Ukraine. 

Should the Russians succeed in conquering Ukraine then they will have a future launching pad in the coming years to invade other eastern and central European nations.  Even though the Russian army has fought poorly in Ukraine, Moscow will still militarily prevail (as it is now poised to do in Ukraine) due to the absence of American military protection for the European continent. 

To prevent this horrifying scenario from occurring the European Coalition of the Willing must quickly announce its preparedness to send troops to fight in Ukraine unless the Russians agree to an immediate cease-fire and to participate in negotiations (which must include European nations) for a treaty to end the Russo-Ukrainian War.     

                                                                                                                                        The Peace Paradox of Mutually Assured Destruction

Sending European troops to Ukraine will tip the military balance in favour of Ukraine which raises the frightening prospect that Putin will resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons.  However, because Britan and France can retaliate with their nuclear weapons the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) will remain in place therefore deterring the Russian president from using tactical nuclear weapons.

It could be argued that the MAD doctrine will not deter Putin because he is too irrational.  As malevolent as the Russian dictator is, he is still rational in relative terms.  Indeed, Putin is a brilliant tactician and strategist.  This was evident concerning Putin’s cultivation of the Trump camp back in 2016 when Russian on-line disinformation swung the American presidential election that year against Hilliary Clinton. 

Having unexpectantly won the US presidency in 2016, Donald Trump did not really ‘find his feet’ during his first presidency.  This period was a steep learning curve for Trump so that when he was out of office during the Biden presidency (2017 to 2021) the former American president utilized his newly acquired skills to assemble a formidable coalition to win back the presidency in 2024. 

All then might have been well for the United States and the world had a relaunched Donald Trump not still being in thrall of Vladimir Putin or at least covertly supportive of the Russian leader’s agenda in the coming years to militarily re-conquer central and eastern Europe. 

                                                                                                                                              Why History Must Not Repeat Itself

Unfortunately, non-Make America Great Again (MAGA) Republicans such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio now seem to be supporting President Trump’s covert pro-Putin foreign policy.  Alas, it can be said of Secretary Rubio that he is helping to ‘string along’ the Ukrainians and the Europeans by talking up the prospect of negotiations with Russia as Moscow prepares to launch its final 2025 Spring Offensive against Ukraine. 

As a Cuban American, Secretary Rubio should know better than to in effect support Russia’s war against Ukraine. The Cuban people were sold out by the Kennedy Administration’s refusal to provide continued air support for the heroes of Brigade 2506 who had landed at the Bay of Pigs in southeastern Cuba in April 1961.  Furthermore, the Castro dictatorship could have not have subsequently survived had the Soviet Union not resourced communist Cuba.

Secretary of State Rubio should therefore genuinely support Ukraine by endorsing the immediate despatch of European troops to Ukraine unless Rusia agrees to an immediate ceasefire and to participate in negotiations for a treaty to end the Russo-Ukrainian War which include the Europeans. 

                                                                                                                                                                 The Need of Forward Defence

Already, Australia has announced its willingness to despatch troops to join of the European Coalition of the Willing as part of a postwar political settlement.  However, foreign troops are needed now as a matter of urgency to militarily support Ukraine in a combat capacity unless Russia agrees to an immediate cease-fire.  The willingness of Australia’s centre-left Albanese to support Ukraine is commendable and is a manifestation of Australia’s traditional Forward Defence doctrine whereby Aussie troops are despatched abroad to fight as a form of preventative maintenance. 

Australia’s Forward Defence Doctrine has much to recommend it.  It is pleasing that the centre-left government of Sir Keir Starmer in Britan and France’s Emmanuel Macron’s centrist government are also prepared to support Ukraine.  Indeed, both Britan and France face the future prospect of far-right parties (i.e.  France’s National Rally and Britan’s UK Reform Party) being elected to power which might serve to ultimately assist in advancing Putin’s agenda of dominating Europe. 

However, timing is of the essence because the option of sending foreign troops to Ukraine must be urgently considered as an immediate priority given the Trump Administration’s collusion with Putin’s Russia.   While there is still time, Europe must, if need be, go against Trump’s America by rallying to Ukraine’s cause by despatching combat troops to that nation.    It is not too late to despatch European troops to Ukraine because of geographical proximity. 

This article by Dr. David Bennett argues that enforceability of a future treaty to end the Russo-Ukrainian War is essential and that the conclusion of such a treaty would help prevent Russia becoming a satellite of communist China.  

The Russo-Ukrainian War (2022- ) has become a trap for Russia because Moscow is progressively being reduced to becoming a satellite of China (the PRC) because of this war.   President Vladimir Putin’s ambition to resurrect the Soviet empire by invading Ukraine in early 2022 might have been realized had Kiev been quickly overrun.   However, the effectiveness of Ukrainian resistance has been such that the nations of central and eastern Europe have had time to organise and to rally to an expanded North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) so that any future Russian intimidation may now be successfully countered. 

Even though North Korean troops were despatched to assist Russia against Ukraine have apparently fought poorly, Beijing has still been the ultimate beneficiary, because the involvement of North Korean troops brought more time for communist China to ensure that internationally Russia is increasingly becoming more dependent upon its Chinese ally. 

A potential circuit-breaker for Russia has been the return of Donald J Trump to the White House in 2025.  The second Trump presidency offers Putin’s Russia the opportunity to re-establish economic and military ties with the United States so that Russia can take action to curtail its current trajectory towards becoming a Chinse satellite over the next five to ten years.  It is therefore essential that Russia quickly end its war of aggression against Ukraine so that there can be an American-Russian rapprochement. 

The potential for such a rapprochement is promising because the American and Russian presidents clearly have mutual respect for each other.  This mutual trust has been reflected by the bi-lateral approach that the United States has adopted in seeking to directly negotiate with Russia an end to the current war.  This direct bilateral approach of the Americans has inevitably led to tensions between Washington and the European Union (EU) as well as the Ukrainians. 

Ukrainian unease concerning the Trump administration’s bilateral approach was manifested by the recent public verbal jousting at the White House between President Volodymyr Zelenski with President Trump and Vice-President J. D. Vance in late February 2025.  Despite this public display of mutual personal hostility between the Ukrainian president with the United States’ leaders the underlying potential dynamics still exist there for an international agreement to be quickly enacted in order to end the Russo-Ukrainian War.

The above cited scenario is still viable because the key Russian demands that Moscow be allowed to keep the territory that it has acquired as a result of this war, that foreign troops not be subsequently deployed to Ukraine and that Kiev not be allowed to join NATO have been agreed to by the Trump administration.   The major concern that the Ukrainians understandably have concerning these American concessions is the prohibition against any future deployment of foreign troops in Ukraine to deter Russia from re-invading their country following the signing of an international treaty. 

It is therefore essential that enforceable guarantees be put in place to ensure that Russia does not violate an international treaty ending the Russo-Ukrainian War by subsequently re-invading Ukraine.  This can be achieved by convening an international conference to terminate this war.  Nations which partake in such an international conference can undertake to resist any possible future Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

Signatories to such an international conference to end the Russo-Ukraine War such as Britain, France, Poland as well as Scandinavian nations can publicly commit to defending Ukraine in the wake of any Russian treaty violation. Such an international conference could also stipulate the creation of a Demilitarized zone between the Russian Federation and Ukraine as well as the deployment of non-military international inspectors / monitors to that zone. 

Avoiding a Repeat of the 1973 Paris Peace Agreement

Cynics may argue that an international conference to end the Russo-Ukrainian War will be sellout of Ukraine similar to the disgraceful 1938 Munich Conference.  However, signatory nations which ratify any future treaty to end the current Russian-Ukrainian War have a vested interest in ensuring treaty compliance so that President Putin and his successors will know that military consequences would result should Moscow ever re-invade Ukraine. 

Another international conference which saw a nation sold out was the January 1973 Paris Peace Agreement to end the Vietnam War.  The fundamentals of this 1973 international agreement had already been previously negotiated between the United Staes and communist North Vietnam so that South Vietnam was reluctant to sign the treaty.  The fact that Saigon did eventually sign this treaty was due to the secret assurances that President Thieu had received from President Nixon that the Americans would subsequently intervene via aerial bombing to counter possible communist violations of this 1973 treaty. 

The fundamental South Vietnamese mistake which was made at the 1973 Paris Peace Conference was that President Thieu did not ensure that a clause of that treaty was that the United States commit to militarily enforcing the Agreement terms.  Instead, the South Vietnamese leader placed his trust in President Nixon’s personal secret assurances to ensure North Vietnamese treaty compliance. 

While President Nixon had every intention of honouring his secret assurances to President Thieu the onset of the Watergate scandal as well as subsequent congressional sabotage to the Viet-Nam conflict rendered the American president incapable of ensuring treaty compliance by Hanoi.  Had there been a public and legally enforceable clause within this 1973 international agreement then the American Congress might not have been able to subsequently sabotage President’s Nixon’s intention to safeguard an important American ally.

Ultimately, the American failure to protect South Vietnam was due to reluctance on the part of Saigon’s allies to come to its defence following the 1973 international conference to end the Vietnam War.  By contrast, EU/NATO states will have a vested interest in ensuring Russian compliance should an international conference be convened to end the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Ironically, the nation which stands to gain the most from a treaty to end the Russo-Ukrainian War is Russia itself. This is because a termination of this war will endow Russia with the capacity to reset its foreign policy direction vis a vis a reproachment with the United States so that Russia can avoid consolidating its status as a satellite of the PRC.