In a stark warning delivered at the University of Oxford, veteran broadcaster and columnist Peter Hitchens has declared that former US President Donald Trump's proposed peace plan for Ukraine is 'doomed' to failure. He laid the blame squarely on years of Western rhetoric that has painted Russia as 'pure evil'.
A 'European Kashmir': The Fear of a Frozen Conflict
Speaking to Daily Mail columnist Sarah Vine during a live podcast debate at St Peter's College, Oxford, Hitchens expressed his profound fear for the region's future. He predicted that, without a dramatic shift in approach, Ukraine could become 'Europe's Kashmir', with low-level fighting persisting for decades to come.
'My fear is that Ukraine will be a European Kashmir - that 20 years from now, the situation will be the same,' Hitchens stated. He argued that the moral absolutism promoted by Western powers has left Ukrainian leaders 'too proud' to make the concessions he believes are necessary to end the war with Russia.
Hitchens was scathing about the role of morality in foreign policy, calling the concept 'ridiculous'. He pointed to perceived Western hypocrisy, noting how atrocities committed by allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are often ignored, while condemnation of Russia is relentless.
The 'Kremlin Wish List' and a Waning British Influence
The controversial peace plan, details of which were leaked in mid-November, would compel Ukraine to cede occupied territories to Russia, formally renounce any future NATO membership, and agree to slash the size of its military by half. Critics have labelled the proposal a 'Kremlin wish list' that effectively rewards Vladimir Putin's aggression.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has already dismissed several points in Trump's plan as 'unacceptable', warning they would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future attack. However, Hitchens questioned the UK's moral authority to take such a firm stance, given the 'decrepit' state of its own armed forces.
'Britain is a country whose army is now considerably smaller than the one that Trump's agreement would let Ukraine have,' Hitchens argued. 'Our Navy is so decrepit that most of its ships cannot leave port… we stand here on our little, bankrupt island and say: 'You must do this!''
He suggested that this posture risks frustrating a potential peace settlement and that most countries globally avoid such rigid positions on Ukraine because 'they realise it's not going to do them any good.'
Rejecting the 'Bilge' of a New Soviet Empire
When challenged on whether his position amounted to calling for Ukrainian capitulation, Hitchens rejected the foundational premise of much Western policy. He dismissed as 'bilge' the widespread idea that Russia is driven by a desire to rebuild the Soviet empire.
'Relations between Russia and Ukraine from 1991 were really not bad at all,' Hitchens claimed. 'What changed was the very aggressive attitude by the West towards Russia.'
Reflecting on his time as a reporter in Moscow, which he left at the end of 1992, Hitchens lamented the lost prospect of peace. 'In the intervening years, Russia has turned into - not just an area of tension - but an actual ground war being fought with artillery and bombers. How did we do that?' he asked, placing responsibility on 'the lunatics in foreign policy factions in power.'
Ultimately, Hitchens' core argument rests on a grim pragmatism: 'This is not a question of right or wrong. The problem here is that starting wars is easy, but finishing them is incredibly difficult.' His analysis presents a sobering counter-narrative to the prevailing Western support for Ukraine's fight, warning of a long, unresolved conflict that serves no one's interests.
