Cambridge, United Kingdom – The fate of Ukraine and the future of European security hangs in the balance as United States and Russian diplomats prepared to discuss an accelerated peace plan this week.

The uncertainty and dreadful possibilities of this historical moment, with Russia occupying a fifth of Ukrainian soil, dominated the atmosphere of Firewalling the Future, a conference on the future of Ukraine held at Cambridge University on Monday.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Organised by programme leader Victoria Vdovychenko and professor of Ukrainian studies Rory Finnin under the auspices of the Centre for Geopolitics, it brought together Ukrainian, European and British diplomats, soldiers and academics.

Dominant among the Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans present was the sentiment that with Trump’s re-election, the international order is irrecoverably lost and needs to be rebuilt.

Some spoke openly of a post-NATO reality in which Europe must form new structures and alliances to fend for itself.

Advertisement

“No one knows if NATO will be present if things actually happen,” said one Ukrainian parliamentarian whose husband was fighting on the front lines.

“We have to realise as a Europe that outsourced its protection, that … Ukraine suddenly became a valuable security partner. We’re willing to fight and give you a lot of valuable lessons.”

“Is the United States still seen as a reliable partner?” asked another parliamentarian from Kyiv. In a European crisis, she said, “Who will come?”

“If the US continues to say what Vance said at Munich, they are facing a disaster,” said a Ukrainian former cabinet member. “Europe is waking from a warm bath,” he concluded.

All the speakers addressed the conference under Chatham House rules of anonymity.

‘You gotta pay’

In the past year, Europe’s security prospects have changed beyond recognition. US President Donald Trump said NATO protection was no longer contractual but conditional.

“One of the presidents of a big [NATO] country stood up, said, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?” he told students at Coastal Carolina University in February last year. “No, I will not protect you, in fact I would encourage [the Russians] to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay,” he said to cheers.

This month, protection for Ukraine also became conditional, as Trump demanded preferential access to Ukraine’s mineral wealth to pay for the aid the US has provided.

Days later, in his first remarks on European soil, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said “returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective,” and that “the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.”

Advertisement

On Friday, US Vice President J D Vance attempted to reassure European leaders gathered at the Munich Security Conference about the US commitment to their security, but Ukrainians at Cambridge felt European security had become unmoored.

“If the people making those speeches were women, they would have been called all sorts of bad names,” said the parliamentarian. “But with men speaking all that nonsense, we are analysing it for strategic value.”

No respect for ‘weak countries’

There was very little trust expressed in any agreement reached with Russia.

“I have been in Mariupol in 2022 and have experienced torture,” said a Ukrainian woman who has served on the front lines. “Our enemies are ruthless and so I don’t know with whom Trump would like to negotiate.”

Ukrainians felt that once the objective of recapturing all the lands Russia has taken from them since 2014 was dropped, bad outcomes were more thinkable than good ones.

“The world we are living in does not respect weakness, weak countries… I’m not sure this world still respects international law,” said a second parliamentarian.

Non-Ukrainians agreed. “If Crimea remains in Russian hands, Russia will use it to dominate the Black Sea aggressively and to attack Ukraine again,” said a Romanian analyst. “Any energy projects in the Black Sea would be harassed by Russians.”

If any US-Russian framework were to be rejected by Ukraine, conferees agreed that Europe would be the only support left.

“Europe will almost certainly be stuck with the bill for Ukraine’s reconstruction, and may also be stuck with the bill for prosecuting the war, ie $70-100bn a year,” said the Romanian analyst. There were no dissenters.

Advertisement

Finland’s model

The position of China received attention at the conference.

“China’s plan was to divide the American alliance and to cause the Americans to pull away from their networks,” said a Finnish China expert. “They see that coming true.”

China was less happy about Ukrainian resistance, said the expert.

“They are not happy to see the outcome of the war. They hoped for a short war that would damage Ukraine and discredit Zelenskyy. The prolonged resistance is troubling. China will now try to position itself as a peacemaker that never wanted any harm to come to Ukraine.”

A third Ukrainian MP believed the post-Cold War world order was not working anyway because Europeans had stopped protecting themselves.

“In 1985, West Germany had 600,000 troops, France 200,000. The Soviet Union was deterred by Germany and France. The US only provided a nuclear umbrella. After the Cold War this changed, and it was a mistake,” he said.

He called for “new alliances to replace the dysfunctional ones”.

Finland’s Comprehensive Security Model showed a way forward for Europe, said the China expert, referring to the country’s whole-of-society approach to national security.

“It’s about creating a coherent threat perception across society, about having all reservists and military industry ready and on board, attending exercises, etc,” said the expert.

“This is giving people confidence. It works really well. Nobody in Finland is afraid of the Russians.”