THERE is a sense of crisis and chaos in a series of European capitals, including London. Strangely, this has been sparked by the possibility of peace in Ukraine. Normally, this level of panic and confusion would be caused by the outbreak of war, so the current frenzy probably tells us something rather distasteful about the state of mainstream politics across Europe.

One key response has been a series of deranged boasts and plans for the Europeans to continue the war by other means. These are dangerous delusions and should be rejected completely.

Instead of preparing for more war and ramping up both militaristic rhetoric and military spending, European countries should be preparing for peace, for rebuilding Ukraine, and repairing practical relations. Others are. Already there is talk of the US lifting sanctions. Ordinarily, we could argue that a Labour government could take the lead in this, but that seems utterly futile under this leadership.

Wars end in one of two ways. Either there is a dramatic moment when one side is completely routed, as in Berlin in 1945 or in Saigon 30 years later. Or there is a realisation by at least one side that it is not winning or is even losing the war, and it sues for peace. This is when war ends by political decision.

Donald Trump is not a pacifist or isolationist president, as is often claimed. No-one in Canada or Greenland believes he is an isolationist. No-one in Cuba, Venezuela or Iran believes he is a pacifist. He simply recognised that, after $160 billion in war expenditure by the US alone, and possibly hundreds of thousands of dead, the US was not winning in Ukraine. It was a pragmatic decision, not completely dissimilar to the decision to quit Afghanistan four years earlier.

Then, as now, there are some military and political figures who refuse to recognise the reality on the ground and seem willing to fight to the last soldier (but never their daughters or sons). The Western powers have left Afghanistan worse than they found it all those years ago, when the Soviet Union was the enemy, and Osama Bin Laden was an ally. But they have left. They will also one day leave Iraq, also much worse than they found it.

The idea that any Ukrainians were ever going to be better off from Nato’s intervention has no useful precedent. Arguing now that we are leaving Ukraine in a terrible state is only to accept the inevitable outcome of the initial decision to intervene. Similarly, arguing that Ukraine has the sovereign right to join Nato is a double standard. Cuba too is a sovereign country, but it was not allowed to station Russian missiles, under threat of World War III. No country’s sovereignty is absolute, otherwise only one country, the strongest, could exercise it.

Cutting Ukraine out of the negotiations, or European powers, becomes far less scandalous when repeated Ukrainian opinion polls show a large majority want to end the war and begin immediate negotiations. On the vital matter of war and peace, it is the governments in Kiev, Paris and London which are acting against the will of the Ukrainian people.

Yet it is the exclusion of the European governments from the talks which seems to have caused the gravest consternation. The governments of Britain, France and Germany are not used to being treated as if they are irrelevant in international affairs. The damage to their position in the world seems to be the uppermost concern.

This in turn has led to both reckless and dangerous military posturing. The British and French governments at least have tried to insist on putting boots on the ground in a “peacekeeping” role. It would be highly unusual for one or more of the belligerents to be granted a peacekeeping role at the end of a conflict. That is usually a privilege reserved for the victors.

But neither the US nor Russia supports the plan, so it is delusional to pursue it. In Starmer’s case, he calls on the US to act as a “backstop” for the plan, presumably with its own troops on the ground, which would really be the current status quo. Trump refuses to oblige, adding that any Nato member country troops that are sent to Ukraine will not be acting as Nato members — the US will not protect them. 

Not only does this expose the reality of who really runs Nato but also exposes British and French plans as fantasies. Chancellor Olaf Scholz said he was “a little irritated” by these proposals at “completely the wrong time.”

The real danger from these crackpot schemes is not they will be implemented but what European leaders believe is necessary to implement them. They are all agreed on the need for much higher military spending. At a time of general budget constraints, pension cuts in France and austerity in Britain, it is clear that increasing the military budget could only be achieved by cuts elsewhere in government spending. 

It seems that there is money left for military spending, especially if there are cuts to welfare spending to fund it. This would be morally indefensible as well as electorally ruinous for the Labour Party.
Up until a week ago, we were told that Vladimir Putin was too weak to defeat Ukraine, one of the poorest countries in Europe. Now, to justify continuing the war we are told that he is ready to sweep through western Europe. This is propaganda masquerading as policy.

Raising Britain’s military budget from 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.5 per cent would provide an additional £5-6 billion. In terms of Nato’s failed expenditure in Ukraine this would be a trivial amount. But in terms of winter fuel payments, free school meals, universal credit, or house building, these are very substantial amounts. In the military jargon, the costs and benefits are asymmetric. The further misery they would cause would be very substantial.

It is a myth that military spending would boost GDP or provide good jobs. Military spending is like the infamous Japanese bridges to nowhere, providing no economic benefit from the spending. The idea the MoD budget is “jobs-rich” is also a widespread fallacy. If government wants to create jobs, it should nationalise UK Steel, water and rail, and invest heavily. It could end the staff shortages in education and the NHS too.

We need butter, not guns.

Diane Abbott is Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington.