Trump's Ukraine policy and the pivot east
The theory that he's just a proxy for Putin misses his real - and dangerous - agenda.
It seems likely that Ukraine would have fared much better had it negotiated an end to the war when Joe Biden was still in office. If for example Zelensky had called for negotiations in December 2022 — the last time that Ukraine regained significant ground — more than 3500 Ukrainians might still be alive. But more to the point, a settlement under Biden might have avoided some of the hardball negotiating tactics we are now seeing under Trump.
And Trump is indeed playing hardball. On Tuesday, he demanded a “payback” from Ukraine entailing 50% of the revenue from future resource extraction and 50% of future resource licensing revenue. Those terms, amounting to a worse penalty than that imposed on Germany after World War 2, were never going to be acceptable to Ukraine. Even anti-imperialists who have rightly insisted that Kyiv will have to make serious concessions to end this war will have to recognize that such negotiating tactics represent a major obstacle to peace, not a meaningful step in the direction of a settlement.
This, plus a number of other Trump moves and statements — such as his absurd claim yesterday that Ukraine “started it”1 — has reignited talk that he is somehow “in the pocket of” Russia. A comment from former Congressman Joe Walsh is typical:
Sure, tell me Trump isn’t working for Putin. Tell me he’s not a Russian asset. Go ahead.
I have zero interest in relitigating the Russiagate controversy any further because it is frankly boring as hell and everyone has already made up their mind anyway, but what I will say is that this analysis lets Trump off far too easy.
Trump’s policy in Ukraine is entirely subordinate to his belief that the United States military needs to reorient itself towards a potential conflict with China. This means, among other things, drawing down the US’s commitments to NATO and European security. If you do not understand Trump’s pivot to China you will leave him open to misguided anti-imperialist and isolationist defenses that he is responsibly winding down American empire — a dangerous misinterpretation.
Look at the questions Trump has reportedly sent to European governments regarding Ukrainian security. These are not questions calling for a de-escalation of conflict with Russia. These are questions geared entirely towards the goal of getting Europe to assume the bulk of responsibility for constraining Russia. As the State Department put it themselves, Trump’s administration
has been clear that we expect European partners to take the lead in establishing a durable security framework and look forward to their proposals.
Meanwhile, here’s how Trump’s National Security Advisor talks about Ukraine:
The next president should act urgently to bring the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East to a swift conclusion, and finally focus strategic attention where it should be: countering the greater threat from the Chinese Communist Party.
Waltz is quite clear: he believes that Trump “should increase defence spending and revitalise the defence-industrial base” to prepare for potential conflict with China. And he sees the US’s military efforts in Ukraine and Israel as directly impeding that effort.
The obsession with Putin misses all of this. Personally I doubt that Trump gives a damn about Ukraine either way, and that he would just as soon send them nukes as not if it were politically convenient. No one, however, should doubt Trump’s fixation on China.
Thanks for reading! My blog is supported entirely by readers like you. To receive new posts and support my work, why not subscribe?
Refer enough friends to this site and you can read paywalled content for free!
And if you liked this post, why not share it?
I’m curious what responsibility Trump places on Ukraine for this war that wouldn’t reflect just as poorly upon the US. For example, does he blame Ukraine’s cooperation with NATO? But Trump’s own administration proudly promoted it in 2017!