Despite US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and others trying to row back on their comments at the Munich Security Conference (MSC) the damage already seems to have been done – both European NATO members, and importantly I think Russia, will have got the message.
I think the realization is sinking in from Europe, that they need an alternative now to NATO – and the US perhaps needs to take a step back and think through clearly what it means to wave goodbye to NATO, the most successful defense alliance in global history, and the mainstay of Western security over the past seventy odd years.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
NATO does still give the US multipliers when it comes to taking on other foes, like China. And, if Europe does get its defense industry into shape, finally, again Europe could be a much more powerful ally for the US against China than Russia. Europe is a $26 trillion economy, Russia less than $2 trillion. A 4% European defense spend is $1 trillion, half Russian GDP.
But against that backdrop, and with the start of at least US - Russia engagement in a peace process around the war in Ukraine I have a list of questions that I think are important and which I wanted to explore a bit in the text through a Q&A. I don’t know all the answers but in putting this down on paper I help to clear my own mind perhaps and those of readers, maybe.
Question? What is the likely shape of a peace plan being formed by the US and Russia?
Trump-Zelensky Shouting Match Takes World Leaders Aback
Answer? I still think the basics were contained in the Kellogg - Fleiz document from April 2024.
https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/america-first-russia-ukraine
In essence, this entails a ceasefire along current lines with, de facto, Russia keeping what it has, no NATO membership for Ukraine, and Europe is on the hook if it wants to provide any security guarantees for Ukraine. Some sanctions moderation for Russia, and Ukraine has to hold presidential elections in the period between a ceasefire and then agreeing on a defining peace. The assumption had been that the US would continue to arm Ukraine to be able to defend itself going forward, but the Europeans would need to pay the bill
The situation has moved on a bit from there though and not in the favor of Ukraine, with Russia going back to its maximalist demands, for “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine.
Trump seems to have committed a cardinal sin in these negotiations with Putin, giving him all the concessions at the outset, revealing his hand, and giving concessions far beyond what the Russians could ever have imagined. Putin never reciprocates with concessions. He will bite your hand off if you give him quarter, and then go on and bite the other hand off and go for your legs. That’s what we are seeing now with the denazification and demilitarization push.
Question? What does Putin mean by denaziification and demilitarisation?
Answer: Well Ukraine is a democracy, and not a Nazi state – Russia is a fascist state. But Russia wants a change of government in Ukraine to one that it can control. Putin wants early presidential elections and he thinks that the election itself will create divisions in Ukrainian society which he can exploit. Zelensky might lose the election and be replaced by a weaker, more inexperienced leader. The dream scenario for Russia is if a ceasefire is agreed, leading to early elections, then martial law and mobilization will have to end, as per the Ukrainian constitution, and it hopes this will see the mass exit of mobilized men overseas, and then the collapse of Ukrainian front lines, leading to total Russian victory over Ukraine.
On demilitarization, Russia wants the West to impose limits on Ukrainian military capability – a limited number of troops, and military kit, but so low that Ukraine cannot defend itself. All that would leave Ukraine essentially defenseless and open to further Russian invasion.
Trump and his team either cannot get their heads around the above, or just don’t care. I think with Trump he just wants the quick ceasefire deal, which he will use as the base to secure himself the Nobel peace prize, and he does not really care if any peace is good for Ukraine or sustainable. The detail is for the Europeans to work out, or clean up the mess afterwards.
Question? What did you make of the mineral deal?
Answer - see my post from earlier this week. It has been a case of damage limitation for Ukraine from the time it was first presented with the draft Bessent plan. The latest version contains none of the elements Ukraine actually wanted – firm assurances from the US in terms of financing and military supplies for Ukraine. But at least by agreeing, the latest vague draft Zelensky gets some time in the White House to sit down with Trump, before a Trump - Putin summit, and present a final pitch for support or perhaps look into Trump’s eyes and figure out what exactly the US is willing to provide in terms of support for Ukraine. Or rather just how bad the Trump - Putin deal will be. If Zelensky figures out from that meeting that Trump is literally going to sell Ukraine down the river, then it can figure it how then to move on. Maybe that is a result.
Question? Will a ceasefire deal be imposed on Ukraine by Russia and Ukraine?
Answer - I fear so. Trump has no clue about the Ukrainian story/situation, European security, or does not care. He just wants a big shiny deal with a dictator like Putin, to tell the world that Trump cuts deals with big bad guys. It’s just an ego trip for him.
I think Trump sees the world like Putin, that Great Powers, like the US and Russia, make the deals and others comply. I think Trump accepts Putin’s view that Great Powers have spheres of influence – and Trump would sell Ukraine away for Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal. He has few cares about Europe, just thinks it’s weak, is in the US pocket, and will do anything it says. I think Trump would also likely cut a deal with Xi over Taiwan, depending what he gets out of it for the USA.
Question? Can Ukraine say no to a ceasefire deal?
Answer - Ukraine cannot say yes to a ceasefire deal unless there are clear-cut security guarantees. Ukraine knows that if it agrees to a ceasefire without security guarantees and is forced to hold early presidential elections, then this sets in motion destabilizing forces which would see its defense, economy, politics and social unravel pretty quickly – see above. So it’s Trump card, pun intended, is to hold back as long as possible from agreeing on any ceasefire until it gets some assurances on the security front. So not giving Trump his ceasefire and Nobel prize.
Question? Can Ukraine fight on, if it fails to agree to a Putin -Trump ceasefire deal.
Answer - Ukraine has some leverage here as it has financing in place to last a year or so, makes around 40% of its own munitions, can secure arms still from Europe and other allies and the Biden administration did manage to front load military supplies as far as it could. Shortages will appear in critical areas like Patriot missiles, HIMARS missiles, etc, and the US could make life very difficult for Ukraine by cutting intelligence, Starlink et al. It would be tough, painful. Casualties would increase, but Russia itself is still struggling to secure critical battlefield advantage and still has proven unable to take and hold much more Ukrainian territory. In a way, a challenge from a Trump-Putin deal is that if Trump tells Putin, “Ukraine is yours,” Putin might not actually be able to take it, and the longer time goes by without Putin seizing the initiative, when put on a plate, the weaker he looks. And Zelensky can use the loss of US support as a rallying cry for the nation, going to full mobilization as a means to cover long-standing manpower shortages.
Interestingly, as relations with the Trump administration have soured in recent weeks, support for Zelensky in Ukraine seems to have rallied and he can use this to his advantage. Faced with a bad peace deal, which appears unsustainable and pushes Ukraine to concede territory but for no long-term security guarantees, I think most Ukrainians would say, hell let’s fight on, and see if we get better terms down the line. They would view the options as being fight on or risk their extermination anyway at the hands of Russia under a Trump - Putin peace.
Question? Why are security guarantees so important?
Answer - well I cannot see Ukraine developing economically unless investors and the population see the country as secure from future Russian attack. There will be no inward investment and migrants will not return home. The country will struggle economically, and I think this will result in social and political instability, which Russia will again take advantage of.
Question? What is the minimum security guarantee you are looking for?
Answer - I always thought NATO membership was unlikely as the US, Germany and Hungary, et al would just veto it. Actually, the debate around NATO membership was always peripheral in my mind as this war was never about NATO membership for Ukraine – Putin invaded not as NATO membership for Ukraine was ever likely but because he has never accepted Ukraine’s fundamental right to exist. This was a war to destroy Ukrainians’ sovereignty. See my musings on this subject below:
And on bilateral security guarantees, well again, not sure they stack up without NATO membership really, which is now reflected in the debate about the worth of a European reassurance force without the US backstop. If the UK or France provide a bilateral security guarantee, does that not risk ultimately dragging the rest of NATO into a war with Russia? I just think it is unrealistic. In any respect, after Trump, Vance et al, NATO is kind of dead anyway – see the poll above.
So as I have long argued, the best long-term security guarantee for Ukraine is ensuring Ukraine gets the weapons it needs to defend itself, a kind of State of Israel style guarantee which means the West needs to commit to provide the full range of conventional military kit to Ukraine for it to be able defend itself. Ukrainians herein have proved more than able to fight Russia, the problem is the West has failed to provide financing and munitions in a timely manner. So let’s guarantee them the financing and kit, and let them look after their own security.
And then back to the focus for Russia now on the demilitarization of Ukraine – Russia will try and persuade the US to limit Ukrainian military capability, which is why Trump has surrendered leverage in talks and allowed the starting point for talks to move East, in favor of Russia.
Question - but will Trump still be willing to sell Ukraine and Europe weapons to defend against Russia?
Answer - now here is the key question. As noted above Putin, will try and get Trump to commit not to supply Ukraine with significant military kit. The challenge for Europe is to put together a financing plan to fund Ukrainian weapons supplies that is so large that Trump simply cannot say no. They need to get on with confiscating Russian immobilized assets, and add in loans and grants for Ukraine to get to a number for a long-term military procurement program that Trump cannot say no to. Call it $500 billion or a $1 trillion program over a decade. Imagine the US jobs that would be created/saved. Call it the Trump Plan to Defend Democracy, whatever, play to his ego. But actually, while the minerals deal brings uncertain benefits really to the US, arms purchases by Europe and Ukraine bring real jobs to the US. And if the arms supplies ensure Ukrainian security, then the minerals deal could actually bring big real financial returns to the US. But the full package needs to be sold to Trump.
Question - what about sanctions relief in Russia?
Answer - it looks like the Trump administration will lift most/many sanctions on Russia. It looks like the Trump administration wants to do economic deals with Russia, that’s the reality. The question though is can Europe, Canada, Japan keep their sanctions in place? And would the US try and pressure Europe to follow with sanctions moderation?
Well, I think Europe, Japan, and Canada will want to keep sanctions in place on Russia, as they will still see Russia as a long term threat, and will want to keep the Russian economy weak and unable to regenerate military capability. Trump might try and force Europe to lift sanctions and could perhaps use tariff pressure to force their hand. That said though, the Trump administration might think that the US could take advantage of trading with Russia while European sanctions remain in place. The US could try and profit by helping Russia circumvent sanctions by Europe and other allies. You might then think that ultimately this might see the whole sanctions regime collapse, as Europe might conclude, what’s the point?
All the above said, Western business might just conclude that reputational risk, and longer term uncertainty over the Western relationship with Russia makes it still too difficult to go back to business as usual. So we could actually see international business still being slow to re-Engage with Russia. And we could still see escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, and even more heinous actions by Russia in the conduct of the war to make international business think again here. For international business, managing the sanctions regime around Russia is likely to remain challenging, which might still deter business re-engagement.
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
