One reading of Trump’s intentions for peace in Ukraine is that they include close US links with Russia that would split Russia from China. This reading fits with US and Russian officials agreeing in Saudi Arabia to explore the economic and investment opportunities that could flow from peace in Ukraine.
Trump’s transactional view of geopolitics, coupled with his unconcern for ethics or ideology in his choice of transactional partners, opens up options for US foreign policy hitherto off-limits, bringing with it huge implications for UK defence and foreign policy.
Trump has given Putin a diplomatic upgrade over Ukraine
One element of a new policy towards Putin has already been put in place by Trump. The meeting at foreign minister level between the US and Russia in Saudi Arabia was the first since before the Ukraine war, and amounted to a big diplomatic upgrade for Moscow on Washington’s part. On any view this amounted to a public relations win for Putin at home and abroad and caused dismay among Europe’s NATO allies.
Trump is already taking Putin’s side by attacking the democratic legitimacy of President Zelenskyy. Trump has followed Putin’s lead in criticising Zelenskyy for failing to hold the election scheduled for 2024 which Zelenskyy postponed because of the war and the imposition of martial law, which makes Zelenskyy a “dictator” according to Trump – though he appeared to disown this comment at a White House press conference with Keir Starmer.
Trump has added – falsely – that Zelenskyy has only a 4% approval rating in Ukraine. In fact, Zelenskyy recently polled an approval rating of 57% – higher than that of Trump at the time who scored 53%. Elon Musk has accused Zelenskyy of being corrupt and of “feeding off the dead bodies of Ukrainian soldiers”. Trump even seems to have blamed Ukraine for starting the war, despite the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine.
After a row with Trump and JD Vance, Zelenskyy was ejected from the White House, with Trump saying afterwards Zelenskyy just wanted the war to go on and on. On 4 March Trump announced he was suspending military aid to Ukraine.
All this must be music to Putin’s ears. And it sounds very much like Trump and Musk are softening up US public opinion for a peace deal that hands over to Putin all the territory of Ukraine that he currently holds and leaving Europe in thrall to Russia.
Trump demands Ukraine’s mineral wealth
Another element is for Ukraine to hand over part of its mineral wealth in rare earths to the US in payment for past support. After push-back from Zelenskyy Ukraine confirmed a minerals deal with the US, with Trump saying that in return for the deal Ukraine would get “the right to fight on”. Zelenskyy said he would seek to clarify whether Trump would continue to arm Ukraine after signing the framework deal, something the US president had hinted at.
A peace deal for Ukraine which brought Russia closer to the US and distanced it from China might, on the face of it, be in the interests of the US and of Europe too. China could lose a key ally in promoting the multipolar world order which is undercutting the influence of the US and Europe.
But a closer look reveals how Russia could gain at Europe’s expense.
Trump could force a deal on Zelenskyy and declare a US partnership with Russia
The furthest Trump has leaned in Zelenskyy’s direction so far has been to say he would get back as much Ukrainian territory as possible in peace negotiations.
It is true that no peace deal could be signed over President Zelenskyy’s head, but what Trump could do would be to declare that Putin had made a reasonable offer and that Zelenskyy had unreasonably rejected it, even if that offer left Russia in occupation of all the Ukrainian territory it had acquired since 2014. At that point Russia might declare its annexation of the territories in question, while suspending the use of force against Ukraine as long as it refrained from joining anti-Russian alliances.
Trump might then withdraw US economic sanctions against Russia and join Putin in a commitment to a strategic partnership and economic cooperation pact. Trump could declare the aim of mutual cuts in defence spending (with China signing up to cuts too, according to Trump). The US might remain formally a member of NATO, but the credibility of US backing for NATO would be gone.
Some European NATO allies might continue to provide civil and military aid to Ukraine, but Trump and Putin could brand the supply of military hardware to Ukraine as an escalation.
It is not clear whether Ukraine’s rare earths deal with the US and Trump’s comment that it secured for Zelenskyy the “right to fight on” means that Zelenskyy and European allies could continue to confront Russia while Trump’s US regarded the Ukraine issue as settled.
The outlook for Europe: challenges from the far right and defence upgrades
In this new geopolitical world of US/Russian rapprochement, far-right pro-Putin parties in Europe will continue to receive support from Musk on social media and Musk might host conferences of ‘European Freedom Parties’ in Washington, perhaps with guest appearances from President Trump and Vice President Vance. But not all populists are pro-Putin, as Donald Tusk’s populist predecessor in office, and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, have proven.
Without doubt, voices in France, Germany, the UK, Poland and elsewhere in Europe would continue to be raised in favour of establishing more effective defences against Putin’s Russia now that Trump’s America can no longer be counted on. Germany’s new Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called for European “independence” from the US.
The most daunting challenges for Europe would be increasing the credibility of their conventional defences, increasing defence expenditure, and last but definitely not least replacing the US nuclear umbrella. On 25 February UK Prime Minister Starmer announced that UK defence spending would rise from 2.3% to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, funded by a cut in overseas aid spending.
Nuclear weapons pose a threat to an under-prepared Europe
Putin would seek to dominate Europe with his arsenal of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, to which Europe alone currently has no credible answer. The French and UK strategic nuclear weapons are likely to deter Russian attacks on their territory, but neither country can counter Russian preparedness to use low-yield tactical nuclear weapons against, say, airfield or troop concentrations in the territory of allies.
The call by Germany’s new Chancellor Merz for the French and UK nuclear deterrents to be extended to cover NATO allies is not quite the answer. For France and the UK to begin to remedy the loss of the US nuclear umbrella would mean acquiring lower-yield tactical nuclear weapons and the doctrine to match, and a willingness to station tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of key European NATO allies. A credible nuclear umbrella for Europe might also require one or more other European allies to acquire their own nuclear weapons.
One risk is that Russia would label any moves in the direction of an effective European nuclear umbrella as aggressive nuclear proliferation and threaten pre-emptive action of the sort Israel undertook against Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, or against sites where nuclear warheads were assembled or deployed. But if Europe’s NATO allies do not take such a risk then a Russia militarily battered and enfeebled by the Ukraine war will nevertheless emerge as master of Europe.
Europe could enter an unparallelled era of political instability
For the UK Prime Minister Starmer, defying Trump would stretch the ‘special relationship‘ between the UK and the US to breaking point. Since part of the special relationship is US management of the joint US/UK pool of D5 Trident missiles, Trump could easily pile pressure on Starmer if he wanted to. Other European NATO allies might shrink from backing Ukraine if it meant defying Trump.
Any close partnership between the US and Russia designed to ‘stabilise’ Europe would be as opportunistic and volatile as the 10-year non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia in 1939 that divided Europe into spheres of interest. It paved the way for Germany’s invasion of Poland. Less than two years later, Germany renounced the pact and invaded Russia.
How Trump offering such a huge helping hand to Putin, at a low point in Russia’s economic and military fortunes, combined with the subservience of Europe’s NATO allies to Moscow, could be expected to weaken China and contribute to US security is difficult to fathom.
Most Americans and many Republican lawmakers would surely know this was about as wrong a turning as the Trump administration could make.
If Ukraine and the security of Europe are to be sacrificed on the altar of ‘Making America Great Again’, more voices must be heard than those of Trump, Vance and Musk. Europe deserves better. So does America.
And if Ukraine, the UK and Europe’s other NATO allies are to reject the role of Trump’s sacrificial lambs, they will need to act together, to act decisively, to make sacrifices, and to take more risks than their populations have yet been prepared for.
This is an edited version of an article first published in Derrick Wyatt’s blog. Read the original article.
