Will Trumpworld become Trump’s world? The domestic trifecta is attained, and the battle for the bureaucracy is joined. Donaldus Maximus turns to the far provinces of the empire: to Canada, Britain, and Gaul. He eyes the wild places beyond the walls and the water: Greenland and, again, Canada. He looks to the restive borderlands between the empire of the West and the empires of the East, to the client states of Judea and Arabia Felix, and to Ukraine, whose name derives from the Slavic for “borderland,” with its rich, dark soil that made it the breadbasket of the tsars of Russia but is mud in the White House.
We are back in the age of power politics and empires. The war in Ukraine will end because the leaders of the United States, Russia, and China think it is time to end the war. The fiasco of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s White House press conference was not necessary, but it had to happen. The Trump administration notified Zelensky of its terms for support and his surrender: The U.S. gets priority access to Ukraine’s mineral reserves, and Ukraine gets a new leader because neither Russian President Vladimir Putin nor Trump trusts Zelensky. It’s Machtpolitik, the old-fashioned power politics of resource competition, and it just might work.
Recommended Stories
- Small businesses have been battered, but confidence is rising
- What both sides get wrong about Ukraine
- For Hunter, the Biden business goes bust
Zelensky blew up the press conference so he could renegotiate better terms. Yasser Arafat, who pioneered the art of extracting support from gullible liberals while dressed as a toy soldier, called this strategy al huroub ila al aman, “escape by running forward.” The Trump administration responded by cutting off funds, weapons, and intelligence-sharing. Three days later, Zelensky escaped by walking it back, saying he was “ready” to sign the minerals deal. He has already said he is ready to give up Ukraine’s presidency for peace or for NATO membership. He is negotiating the terms of his retirement to south France.
The end of the war in Ukraine will bring a new era in relations between the three great powers. It will alter relations between the big three and the rising powers, especially India and Turkey. It will alter all their relations with the declining powers of Europe. A couple of weeks ago, I asked if the end of the war means the end of NATO and the further destabilization of a Europe that is unwilling or unable to fight its corner or a rebalancing of interests in which a revitalized Europe buttresses the administration’s plans for Trumpworld (“Making or Breaking NATO,” Feb. 21). The answer can be seen in the European response in those three days while Zelensky was sulking in his tent.
The unelected leaders of the European Union posted identical statements supporting Zelensky: “Your dignity honors the bravery of the Ukrainian people. Be strong, be brave, be fearless. We will continue working with you for a just and lasting peace.” This was just talk. Just as well. Acting on it would mean continuing a futile war that Europe cannot fight alone. Kaja Kallas, the vice president of the EU Commission, said Russia is “beatable” and that the U.S. cannot deter China from Taiwan so long as Russia remains unbeaten. The U.S. cannot beat Russia only by sending money and weapons.
The Europeans, such as Zelensky, want the U.S. directly involved but they know they cannot ask directly.
Emmanuel Macron, the lame-duck president of France, and Keir Starmer, the most unpopular prime minister in British history, promised to guarantee Ukraine’s postwar security with “boots on the ground” and, Starmer added, “planes in the air.” This human tripwire and a no-fly zone would, Starmer admitted, only be installed after the U.S. gave security guarantees. Ukraine would be a hair-trigger away from direct contact between the U.S. and Russia, which are two nuclear-armed militaries. This is not a peace proposal. It sets the terms of escalation to disaster.
TRUMP SMASHES UKRAINE’S SHIELD AND SUMMONS RUSSIA’S SWORD
Starmer convened a European conference for Zelensky and wheeled out King Charles III for a photo-op. The British media celebrated these triumphs of soft power and reveled in the opportunity for some cost-free contempt of the vulgar Americans, but the truth was that even their fellow Europeans weren’t interested. The Polish, German, and Italian governments said they would not send troops to Ukraine. The front-line Baltic states would not confirm either way.
The Europeans want to tie NATO into Ukraine. The Trump administration opposes that, so the Europeans blamed Trump and Vance for tag teaming Zelensky and talking up a chimerical European army while demanding American protection. If an independent Euro-army ever happens, it would mean the end of NATO. The question isn’t just whether the U.S. should subsidize the creation of a rival power. It’s why the Europeans blame Trump for threatening NATO’s survival when they’re doing far more to trash it. Above all, it’s whether Trumpworld can become Trump’s world without America’s traditional allies.