Listening to the various Trump picks’ confirmation hearings in Congress this week it seems pretty clear now that there is no meaningful Trump grand plan about how to quickly end the war in Ukraine.
Indeed, backtracking by Trump himself, Kellogg, et al, from the position that the war can be ended in a matter of days in/around the inauguration to it will likely take some months, suggests they are now in search of a plan.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
There is, I think, a genuine desire to end the war – as Trump says “to stop the killing,” reduce the draw on the US budget – and for some hardcore MAGA China hawks (Bannon et al) I think a desire to cut a deal with Putin, to realign then, almost Nixonian style, for the looming end game with China. These latter hawks almost see the world in evangelical terms of a Judeo-Christian alliance between the West and Russia against the non-believers in China.
For Trump, I think rather simplistically, he thinks that if you give Putin some wins – keeping territory he holds, no NATO for Ukraine, and assurances to limit Ukraine’s ability to use Western long-range missiles to strike Russia, and sanctions moderation – that would be enough for Putin to call a halt to the war. They assume the “win” for Ukraine is simply Putin stopping offensive military actions.
This is really naive, as it puts zero thought about the security of Ukraine, which is central to its future stability and also the security of Europe itself.
Which Foreign Leaders Are Invited to Trump’s Inauguration?
Trump’s recent claims to territory including Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal, suggests further that he rather agrees with Putin’s long held view that Great Powers deserve “spheres of influence” – suggestive perhaps that Trump would even gift Putin’s dream of a second Yalta summit to carve up the world. Ukraine for Putin, and perhaps the quid pro quo of Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal for Trump. Not sure if Xi would be invited or what he would get.
The problem from the perspective of credible long term Putin watchers is all that would simply not be enough for Putin.
He would take everything Trump offered, bank that and push for more. That is the experience of all Putin’s wars in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Syria, Libya et al. And for Putin it is not just about territory, it is his hatred of our very system of Western Liberal Market Democracy.
Indeed, his invasion of Ukraine was never about NATO membership for Ukraine – which, following his 2014 annexation of Crimea and then first invasion of Donbas, was never a realistic prospect. But for Putin it was about the threat he saw from Ukraine’s shift from Russian client state under Yanukovych to likely entry into the Western club of liberal market democracies with the signing of Ukraine’s EU association agreement in 2013.
It was because he knew that what Ukraine was on course to get – a democratic, rules-based order – Russians too would want, and that inevitably meant his own ouster at home. It is democracy that Putin hates, not NATO.
For Putin he is in an existential battle with the West – it is kill or be killed. Trump just does not get that, or does not care.
So Putin will not stop at a Yalta 2, but he wants total victory against the West.
What Trump does not realize is that unless any peace deal makes Ukraine secure from future attack, Putin will inevitably use that as an excuse for future military invasions.
That reality, that Putin will not stop there, and the insecurity a likely bad peace will inevitably bestow on Ukraine, means that Ukraine will not see the required investment needed to ensure its successful economic development. And without successful economic development – the risk is of a repeat of the 22 years of failed economic development between 1991 and 2013 where Ukraine was stuck between East and West with no proper anchor, and hence it will be subject to social and political instability.
Ask yourself why Ukraine suffered two revolutions in 2004/05 and then again in 2014. History will surely repeat itself as millions of soldiers and migrants return to disappointment – and future social and political instability will be exploited by Putin either seeking to capture politics in Ukraine or an excuse for future invasions.
Trump is not going to provide the leadership either on Ukraine, or around security in Europe. Yes, his call for European partners to up defense spending to 5% of GDP is a clarion call, but because Trump will fail in his likely peace plan for Ukraine, Europe has to take the initiative, and likely should anyway.
Europe needs to have Plans A, B and C herein.
Plan A should be trying to educate Trump as to the importance of ensuring a secure peace for Ukraine.
The pitch to Trump should try and exploit the fact that Trump hates failure, or being deemed as a failure. The pitch should then be if you fail to ensure Ukraine has sufficient security to fend off Putin, Ukraine faces total collapse, and this would be a devastating blow to Europe.
Millions of migrants would move West, destabilizing European economies and their social and political fabric. Europe would be fatally weakened, with risks of inter-ethnic conflicts within Europe.
A weaker Europe, because of Trump, would be a much reduced market for US goods, and a less useful longer term ally in the looming battle with China. And all this would be on your watch – it would make Biden’s failure in Afghanistan look like a sideshow.
Plan B should focus on how ensuring Ukraine’s security and that of Europe could be a huge boon to the US economy through a likely huge increase in defense spending and thrown demand for US military kit.
Ukraine has proven more than able to defend itself, but could have won the war already with the right and timely supply of Western, mostly US military kit.
NATO membership and bilateral security arrangements for Ukraine are nice to-haves but, given the politics, are never likely to get. Better for Ukrainians is to trust in their own defense, but the requirement therein is assurances that they will be guaranteed delivery of whatever it takes in terms of military technology and kit to defend themselves – the equivalent of State of Israel guarantee from the US.
The stark reality is that only the US defense complex has the capability and capacity to provide the required equipment. But Europe – a $26 trillion economy is more than able to write the check – likely only $150 billion a year, and a cheap investment given that each 1% of GDP increase in NATO spending, because of the Russia threat costs Europe $250 billion a year.
Europe could even opt to fund the increased defense spending commitment to Ukraine by finally freeing up the $330 billion in immobilized Russian CBR assets for the use of Ukraine. Ukraine could then pledge to spend a large share of this buying US military kit.
Play to Trump’s ego herein, pledge a 10 year $1 trillion European/Ukrainian US defense purchase program and call it the Trump Defense of Democracy in Europe program – the new Marshall plan for Europe.
Plan C, plan for Trump going AWOL and leaving Ukraine with a bad peace deal which likely means it’s eventual defeat.
Step up financial and arms supplies to Ukraine to buy Europe time to ramp up its own defense capability – up to 4-5% of GDP. But prepare for the inevitable further aggression from Russia.
Europe should plan herein to maintain its own sanctions against Russia, irrespective of what the US does. In the absence of the US backstop, Europe should perhaps look to depend its own diplomatic, economic and security ties with others such as Turkey, and even China.
The latter might just serve as a wakeup call to the Trump administration. China might be the number one strategic threat to the US, but for Europe, it is undeniably Russia.
Reprinted from the author’s @tashecon blog! See the original article here.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
