PUTIN AND TRUMP, TRUTH AND TRUST
What if Mary Trump is right? In the book entitled “Too Much and Never Enough -How my family created the world’s most dangerous man”, Mary Trump, Donald Trump’s niece, describes her worry about the destruction of America he was wreaking, in his first Presidency, She describes how lies, misrepresentations and fabrications are the sum total of who he is; how he has no strategies or agendas or organising principles, just his ego; and that the idea of “Donald’s strategic brilliance in understanding the intersection of media and politics must be dispensed with. He doesn’t have a strategy. He never has.” Who knows what motivated Mary Trump to write her book, but it is certainly is an act of courage given the propensity of Trump to revenge.
What if Daniel Finkelstein is right? In the Times, he refers to Donald Trump’s book “The Art of The Deal”, and to Trump’s own self-adulation when announcing his bid for the 2015 Presidency saying “We need a leader who wrote the Art of the Deal”. But he didn’t write it, Tony Schwartz did. This article refers to how “Schwartz was mainly struck by how much lying Trump did” and his observations on Trump’s “almost impossibly short attention span”; how a great many of the deals he brags of never happened or collapsed later; how his partnerships are short-lived; and in short how he is more a borrower than a dealmaker who is borrowing against the USA’s accumulated goodwill, and wasting that trust.
What if Yuval Noah Harari is right? In his FT article “Trump’s World of Rival Fortresses” he describes his view of Trump’s simple solution for the world: the way to prevent conflicts is for the weak to do whatever the strong demand. He describes a Trumpian world view in which considerations of justice, morality and international law are irrelevant, and the only thing that matters in international relations is power: Ukraine is weak, refuses to surrender and so the war is its fault.
What if European leaders and commentators are right? Many are suggesting that the USA, in the hands of Trump, can no longer be relied upon as an ally, in NATO or otherwise such as in the provision of arms on which so many nations have to date relied? This distrust , if it takes deep root, will have the most profound effect, and is a tragedy for the USA.
These views may all have an element of truth and can colour any consideration of what Trump is doing in negotiating with Putin the ceasefire and peace deal in Ukraine. There seems a fairly unanimous Western view that Putin is not to be trusted and merely uses truth and lies as best serves his ultimate ends, and so, if that is correct, the lives of Ukrainians and perhaps all Europeans are now in the perilous grasp of two totally untrustworthy despots driven by whatever takes their fancy. One may have no strategy, the other most likely has a very clear destructive one. But if Putin is out to play a long game, Trump’s short attention span may cause an unanticipated rebound.
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
President Zelensky is willing to have an unconditional ceasefire, acceding to all Trump’s demands. Putin is not, while laying down conditions for any peace which effectively totally neuter Ukraine’s independence and security. Marco Rubio, Trump’s representative, before Putin had responded, said that “If their (Putin’s response is no, it’ll be highly unfortunate, and it’d make their intentions clear”, that is they do not want peace. However, after the response of “no”, the White House message was that the Trump/Putin discussions were highly productive. A public stance which flies in the face of truth helps nobody, but maybe Trump and Putin addressed matters which remain silent.
Putin agreed to some minor things which suited him, most significantly a mutual ceasefire from bombing energy sources and infrastructure generally according to President Trump. Unfortunately, according to Putin his record did not match Trump’s and only related to energy sources. Anyway, after so agreeing his bombing of all infrastructure continued. Now Marco Rubio declares his belief that Putin is acting “in good faith”, it is reported. Does anyone else believe that? Does he really? The next “ceasefire” supposedly agreed by Putin with Trump related to Black Sea naval warfare where Putin has little success anyway: but Putin’s conditions, such as the readmission of Russia’s main bank to the SWIFT banking system remain unfulfilled and so the ceasefire is illusory. Meanwhile President Zelensky declares himself unconditionally ready to ceasefire and nods thank you to Trump as he dare do nothing else but treat him a bit like a child and keep the sweets flowing. Talks will it seems continue as does the war, with at least for now the USA continuing the vital supplies flowing to Ukraine and sharing crucial military intelligence. Perhaps, President Zelensky is perhaps hoping that the reality about Putin being untrustworthy and the futility of treating him as a trusted counterpart will ultimately dawn on Trump. He could be waiting a long time as Trump only recently reiterated his nonsense untruth that Zelensky started the war with Russia: as long as Trump bases his decisions on his own made-up history which the world knows is false it is hard to take seriously any seeming commitment he makes.
In these negotiations eventually the time will come when Putin’s insistence that the West in effect stops helping and abandons Ukraine militarily and that Ukraine becomes a castrated nation which Putin can manipulate, subjugate and effectively control is finally put to the test. Given perhaps Trump has to be seen to live up to his boast that he will bring peace, will he so bully President Zelensky to concede to Putin’s demands, against a threat by the USA to drop all support? President Zelensky would turn to European promises to stand by Ukraine and then will Europe stand firm? These tests await. But Trump now says he may just give up on involvement in the idea of peace.
It is of little encouragement that Europe, by saying it cannot defend Ukraine without the USA backing, seems to have surrendered its power already, despite an economy several times the size of Russia’s. It may, however, have to do what it can and winning without the USA may only be possible by Europe going on a war footing.
Alternatively, Trump may see that all Putin understands is raw power. Instead of appeasement, Trump may the realise that peace is only possible in the longer term if the USA and an emboldened and rearming Europe pour 100% resources into military support for Ukraine and total sanctions of every kind against Russia. The USA boasts it has the economic power too to bring Russia to heel: the only real way to win this Trumpian game of poker is perhaps to stack the cards so heavily in Ukraine’s favour. Putin may then see that with concessions perhaps he can ease gracefully away, while internally expounding and spinning his mission accomplished. Ukraine may not join NATO, a win for Putin, but it may get steadfast support from at least Europe and join the EU. Trump can have his minerals but only recently he declared them insufficient and now he wants from Ukraine oil pipelines too! This way Trump can be a real winner, not risk being a loser, which is a prospect, if Mary Trump is right, he could not endure.
CLOUD CUCKOO LAND
As all the negotiations continue, UK’s Keir Starmer nobly and steadfastly leads European talks about a “coalition of the willing” to police compliance with the ceasefire and the peace when they come, involving the armies, air forces and navies of certain countries, but not all of NATO, being active in Ukraine. The whole idea is premised on U.S. guaranteeing security in some way, reflecting Europe’s surrender which has already taken place: Putin will have no fear of such weakness. Even in cloud cuckoo land where this is agreed to by Putin and the USA, if Europeans now believe Trump to be an unreliable ally, is his guarantee one that with a straight face they can rely on? No has to be their answer and so the whole coalition idea is on a false premise by the leaders’ own admission. And in that fantastical cloud cuckoo land what if in a year or two Putin rolls his armies into Ukraine. Will the coalition members stand fast and risk all out European war and oppose Russian tanks, shoot Russian aircraft down and sink their ships? If this coalition is to be a deterrent, they have to be willing to do that, even if Putin does a deal with Trump who then withdraws any guarantees as an unreliable ally might do if in the USA’s interest at the time?
Even if cloud cuckoo land is reached how long would it exist? Putin’s consistently expounded ambition to effectively neuter or own Ukraine and the commitment of Europeans and Ukraine itself to a strong independent Ukraine which can defend itself against Russia are incompatible. Is there a real compromise available between the capitulation of the West to Putin’s demands and the outright defeat of Putin through sheer economic and military force? Either outcome may suit Trump depending on how he finally decides benefits him most in the end. His lack of any capacity for strategic thinking is further separately evidenced by his stop/start, go then reverse, chaotic announcements on tariffs: on that topic too, no sensible independent observer can discern any intelligent beneficial purpose.
Meanwhile Putin bombs Ukrainian civilians without mercy, just the other day killing 34 in the middle of Sumy, breaks his own 24-hour Easter ceasefire, and Ukrainians display courage and resilience, and invention, to hold Putin back. But for how long, while Trump plays his pathetic immoral games?
Leave a Reply