American commentators and even some of our so-called conservatives are trying to put a spin on what amounts to an act of gross betrayal. But surrender by any other name smells as vile.
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said that America would “no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship” with her Western allies. “Europe,” he added, “must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and non-lethal aid to Ukraine.”
Meanwhile, any peace negotiations “must start by recognising that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective”. The Ukraine will never be admitted to NATO, he continued, US troops will never take part in any peace-keeping force, Putin will get to keep the Ukrainian provinces currently under Russian occupation.
And oh by the way, Trump spoke with Putin on the phone, and the two friends ironed it all out between themselves. Zelensky can do only two things: grin and bear it.
A few empty reassurances followed after the truthful statement that the US “is no longer focused” on Europe: “’The United States remains committed to the NATO alliance and to the defence partnership with Europe, full stop.”
Experienced liars know that their fibs have a better chance of being believed if they contain a kernel of truth. Trump and his retinue are absolutely right that Europe has been too negligent about its own defence for too long. We should definitely invest more into protecting ourselves from our enemies, of which fascist Russia takes pride of place.
Trump demands that this commitment amount to five per cent of GDP, as compared to America’s 3.3 per cent, and he has a point: there is a lot of ground to make up. However, the long-standing disparity between America’s and Europe’s defence expenditures, though unfortunate, isn’t as appalling as Trump paints it.
The US derives enormous benefits from her position as the leader of the free world, which includes having the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. That, inter alia, has enabled America to amass an irresponsible public debt of over $30 trillion, which otherwise would prove ruinous. And, as we are taught, extra gains presuppose extra responsibilities.
But there is no denying that Europe should spend more on defence. That, however, must be a separate conversation from helping the Ukraine resist the fascist onslaught.
Even assuming that Europe embarks on a massive rearmament campaign, and I’ve got to see it to believe it, it’ll take years for it to build up to a level where it will no longer need American involvement. How many years is open to discussion, but quite a few in any case.
With the best will in the world, more than doubling defence spending isn’t something that can be done instantly – the logistic hurdles will take time to clear. And even when the spending is up to the desired levels, it’ll take years to convert more cash into more brawn.
This raises that $64,000 question of America’s past: why do Messrs Trump and Hegseth think Putin started the war in the first place? The answer will reveal the true enormity of Hegseth’s animadversions, justifying my use of the harsh word ‘betrayal’.
Putin doesn’t need any more land. He already has much more than he knows what to do with, and Russia has de facto ceded more Siberian terrain to China than the Ukraine possesses altogether.
The war was started for the intermediate objective of restoring the Russian/Soviet empire to its former size and grandeur. What the Russians historically understand by their national grandeur is being able to instil fear into her neighbours and bully them into submission.
The ultimate objective, stated thousands of times by Putin and his henchmen, is to subjugate the West and establish Russia as the dominant world power. As a minimum, Putin would settle for dividing up the world with the US and China, with Europe becoming his bailiwick.
If Trump and Hegseth don’t understand this, they are either idiotic or, more likely, disingenuous. They are pretending to accept Putin’s assurances of limited aims, the better to sell the Ukraine down the Dnieper and Europe down the Rhine.
This runs contrary to the recently published report of Danish intelligence, according to which the Kremlin will take any ceasefire only as a way of rebuilding its military strength to be able to pounce again after a few years. The entire Russian economy is geared up towards that objective, and the underlying long-term commitment is unmistakable.
After two years, said the report, Russia will be ready to start another local conflict; after three, she’ll be able to take on a NATO country on her borders, testing NATO’s commitment to Article 5 of that organisation’s Charter. Should that commitment predictably prove tepid, after five years Russia will be ready to confront NATO in a full-blown European war.
The Ukrainians have been bleeding white trying to stop the fascist offensive, using their bodies as ramparts protecting Europe from evil hordes. Most Europeans understand that the Ukraine is fighting not only for her own freedom but also for theirs. Trump and Hegseth understand it too, but pretend not to.
Disgustingly, Trump has started negotiating with Putin without involving Zelensky. As far as he is concerned, all the Ukraine is entitled to is being informed post factum.
“We have also agreed to have our [American and Russian] respective teams start negotiations immediately, and we will begin by calling President Zelensky, of Ukraine, to inform him of the conversation…,” Trump said on his social media platform.
That’s nice. A lesser man would strike a deal with Putin without even telling Zelensky about it, but Trump in his munificence isn’t like that. The Ukraine has a right to know how her fate has been decided by the big boys, and Trump respects that right.
What he doesn’t respect is the right of the Ukraine and other former parts and satellites of Russia to keep their hard-won freedom. The Ukraine, Trump said the other day, “may be Russian someday”, and he’ll do his best to make sure his friend Vlad gets what he wants.
If he wants all of the Ukraine first and most of Europe second, so be it. That’s what friends are for.
If Europe is no longer a “focus” for the US, what is? Hegseth obligingly provided an answer that was self-evident to begin with. “The stark strategic realities” are such that the US must reorient herself away from the Atlantic and towards the Pacific.
This tale of two oceans is all about competing with China, curtailing her ambitions to become the greatest superpower. Those ambitions palpably include an attack on Taiwan, and China’s massive military, especially naval, buildup points at that intention.
Trump may legitimately fear that America is spreading herself too thin and has to prioritise her commitments. But betraying the Ukraine first and Europe second isn’t the way to go about it.
A president who understands the nature of the geopolitical defence alignment after the Second World War would want to give the Ukraine maximum leverage to end the war on her own terms. He’d then agree to provide the security guarantees to make sure Russia won’t come again in the foreseeable future.
That could be done quickly and without jeopardising the American position in the Pacific. Then Trump could threaten to use Hegseth’s measures as a way of blackmailing Europe into boosting its defence spending. Then America could gradually diminish her military presence on the continent, pari passu with Europe building up its own muscle.
That would leave NATO in good shape to defeat any future aggression. By contrast, what Trump is doing now is being pennies-smart and strategy-stupid. Whatever good policies he is putting in place, and many of them do look promising, will be undone by this treachery.
Whether or not it springs from prior collusion with Putin should matter only to Trump’s future biographers. What matters to us today is that he is putting the survival of European civilisation at risk. But such incidentals don’t seem to concern Trump.
The parallels with the Munich Agreement are obvious. But to know that one has to know about the Munich Agreement, which apparently many of our leaders do not. The arguments for peace all seem to side with Russia. I read an editorial this morning on a conservative Catholic site that is optimistic that Trump is starting down the path to see “Russia as an ally rather than an enemy”. The author was describing the events of the 1990s and went so far as to write, “At that time, the U.S. should have begun the process of dismantling NATO, whose very reason for existence had disappeared.” He seems to blame the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the expansion of NATO. The whole thing is appalling. But according to his logic, I am a warmonger and TDS-sufferer.
Of course, Trump would rather prefer to have Russia on his side in his grappling with China which is America’s main geopolitical rival. Pushing Russia into the arms of China is not what he wants.
Sorry, Zelensky is no longer a legitimate president after he cancelled presidential elections. He’s a self-proclaimed military dictator of Ukraine, defying the will of Ukrainian people who would not have extended his mandate, should presidential elections have taken place. So how is he different from Putin? In Russia there was at least some presidential elections, even if fake. In Ukraine there’s none and it’s still a democracy?