I was discussing the Budapest Memorandum with somebody just the other day. Here is a video of Marco Rubio – the current Secretary of State for the USA – speaking about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Budapest Memorandum and the implications of not following through on it:

Rubio misses out that France also signed the Budapest Memorandum. And so, Britain and France are seeking to fulfil their obligations to Ukraine.

Here is Marco Rubio, just two days ago, defending the disgraceful scenes in the Oval Office last week, saying he had no communication with Zelensky since that meeting.

Rubio insists that all they want is peace and they just want to get people to a negotiating table. The inference has consistently been that Zelensky is being belligerent. Zelensky is the one who is refusing to negotiate. Those who remember the scenes in the White House a few days ago will recall Donald Trump insisting that Ukraine started the entire war. In a bid to be able to parade a deal, to be able to say the amazing deal-maker made a peace deal, Ukraine are thrown under the bus. A deal at any price, a price the Ukrainians will have to pay in the loss of their land to an aggressor who will be emboldened to go further.

Should there be any doubt about what is at stake here, students of history will be in little doubt. The previous two world wars fought in Europe followed similar trajectories. The expansionist aims of Germany (in both cases) were initially ignored, nobody wishing to be embroiled in war. Only, with no push back, expansionism was simply emboldening, causing them to go further until matters increasingly came closer to home for each nation. The Americans also insisted then (in both cases) there was a big ocean between them and Europe and the whole thing was nothing to do with them, until suddenly it was.

More recent history has followed a similar trajectory. First came the incursion into Crimea. An incursion the entire world largely ignored. Following the Crimean incursion, emboldened by the lack of action, Russia determined to enter other parts of Eastern Ukraine. The war currently going on has direct parallels to what happened in Europe some 86 years ago. Putin has made no bones about comparing himself to Peter the Great and insisted that his incursion into Ukraine is much the same. He has alluded to this being an expansionist land grab, a “reclaiming” to Russian territory, and it bears all the hallmarks of such expansionism. The lack of push back in Crimea led to further incursions and how the world responds may well set the course for what Putin determines to do next. But without the American security assurances, and genuine effort to reclaim the land for Ukraine, Putin, like other expansionists before him, will be emboldened to go much further.

Some, in thrall to Russian propaganda, point out that Crimea held a referendum that voted 90% in favour of joining Russia. They fail to recognise that referendum was held after the Russian occupation, by Russian forces, under the auspices of a man who does not have or believe in free and fair elections. These same people call Zelensky a dictator despite being appointed in a free and fair election and the Ukrainian constitution suspending elections during wartime. Neither do they hear when Zelensky happily agrees to stand down if the promises of requisite security guarantees are forthcoming and this is the stated price.

They also fail to acknowledge – as Marco Rubio once did but now gladly overlooks – America, Britain and France signed the Budapest Memorandum specifically so Ukraine would give up its nuclear weapons. If they had not given them up, the chances of this invasion happening are much slimer. This deterrent was given up under Western pressure with the full assurance of full-throated defence should a situation of exactly this sort occur. Britain and France seem willing to do what they are able, but what can anybody conclude in the midst of all that is going on now other than that which Rubio himself acknowledged? A promise from the West (minimally, from certain parts of it and, frankly, the key part that is any longer capable to do anything of true worth) is not worth the paper on which it is written.

In its defence, the combined spending and support of all the European nations (including the UK) has outstripped America’s support. That aside, defence budgets across Europe are being increased and further support for Ukraine is being prepared. Perhaps this is mere self-interest, being as it is much closer to home. Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored that Europe (and it should be said, only Britain and France were European signatories to the Budapest Memorandum) is – whether doing quite enough – seeking to fulfil its commitments to some degree. Commitments the Secretary of State acknowledged readily were US commitments too.

There are some who believe that these events are strong grounds to rejoin the EU. Of course, those who never wished to leave might well think this. But there are those who voted to leave, just as I did, who are beginning to lean this way too. Those who, like me, were inclined to the historic Labour position of Euro-criticism. Those who, like me, stand in the tradition of Michael Foot and Tony Benn. I, for all the reasons I once outlined and have long believed, would not change my vote in that referendum. Those reasons have not gone away and remain valid. I dare say, in some of those predictions (at which I remember being laughed at for making them) I have been proven right. The number of asylum seekers has increased vastly since Brexit, for example, and immigration levels have not gone down. Those who voted for it on that basis made a colossal mistake; those who voted for the reasons I outlined are proven broadly correct. For those of us of a socialist disposition, we have simply never believed in the European Union, we decry the democratic deficit, the limitations on socialist principles and the unhealthy approach to free movement within the bloc that negatively impacts the majority black and Asian countries with whom we have genuine historic ties and owe much more.

Of course, I do agree that the issues with Ukraine show us that our future lies in better relations with Europe. But I never argued otherwise. Whilst there were some little englanders who were intent on leaving the EU with as much animosity directed towards Europe as possible, most leavers were for good relations with the EU outside of the political project. Views may vary as to what those good relations ought to look like in practice, but good relations were hoped for nonetheless. Mick Lynch, the recently retired head of the RMT and leave-supporter, suggested he would have been happy enough to remain in something like the EEC or the European Community, but like most socialists, did not believe in the EU and what came to be termed ‘the European project’.

What is clear, and I think is becoming increasingly clear as the Ukraine crisis unfolds, is that it is possible to act in unison with other European nations and direct our spending in ways that are mutually beneficial without necessarily having to belong to the bloc. As all European nations, both within and without the EU, see the need to up their defence budgets, and both France and Britain (in and out of the EU respectively) both commit to similar priorities in Ukraine, what we see is the possibility of mutually beneficial working relations with genuine partners without the supra-national ties. I don’t believe our future lies in re-joining or belonging to the EU, but I have no doubt our outlook and national priorities more closely align with Europe and our future lies in developing mutually beneficial ties in this direction. That is to say, if the promises of America are not worth the paper on which they are printed on Ukraine, and their new tariff war with their immediate neighbours suggests their trade agreements are not of any greater worth, what is painfully clear is that we ought not to hold out much hope for any agreements ourselves because there is no guarantee any would be honoured.