Following a 90-minute conversation, Trump announced he would meet Putin first in Saudi Arabia and then visit Moscow, while Putin would come to Washington. At NATO headquarters in Brussels, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth spelled out what this means: Ukraine will never join NATO, and a return to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is unrealistic.
And that was before US Vice President JD Vance told Europe at the Munich Security Conference that America and Europe no longer share the same values.
When Trump nominated J.D. Vance as his running mate last year, I warned of precisely this scenario (Europe is now on its own, 23 July 2024). Back then, I pointed out that Vance’s isolationist stance would severely undermine trans-Atlantic security cooperation. This is exactly what is now happening.
Predictable though these developments were, they are still shocking. Not since the end of World War II has there been such a dramatic shift in the global security architecture. And rarely has a great power abandoned its allies with such devastating consequences.
If you are not sure just how dramatic the events of the last week are, think about them this way. When World War II was coming to an end, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin met at Yalta to plan post-war Europe. But they did not invite Hitler to these discussions.
Now, as the Ukraine War appears to be ending, it is the aggressor (Putin) and a sympathetic US President planning Ukraine’s future.
Meanwhile, Ukraine and America’s European allies are effectively excluded from the talks.
As Estonia’s former Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, now EU foreign policy chief, put it, “Why are we giving Russia everything they want even before negotiations have started?”
The dangers of this approach are enormous. A victory for Putin would embolden every authoritarian regime worldwide. It would signal that military aggression pays, that nuclear blackmail works, and that the West’s security alliance is not worth the paper it is written on.
Let us be clear about what is happening. The US is not just abandoning Ukraine. By pre-emptively ruling out NATO membership and accepting Russia’s territorial gains, Washington is capitulating to Moscow’s demands before negotiations even begin.
As former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt observed on X, “It’s certainly an innovative approach to a negotiation to make very major concessions even before they have started. Not even Chamberlain went that low in 1938.”
The Munich Agreement of 1938 is indeed the obvious historical parallel – except this time is worse. At least Czechoslovakia was present at Munich when Britain and France forced it to surrender the Sudetenland to Hitler. By contrast, Ukraine is simply being informed of its fate.
Just as letting Hitler take the Sudetenland did not prevent World War II but made it more likely, surrendering Ukrainian territory to Putin will not bring peace. As I noted last year (Europe’s precarious security could invite Putin to expand war, 26 January 2024), European weakness will only encourage Putin further.
Former Trump officials are sounding the alarm, too. John Bolton, Trump’s former National Security Advisor, warns that Putin is essentially waiting for Trump to “surrender” Ukraine. Another former National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster, cautions that abandoning Ukraine would be a gift to the “axis of aggressors” – Moscow, Tehran, Beijing and Pyongyang. They are both right.
The most likely scenario is frightening enough. Russia will use any ceasefire to regroup and rearm. Once ready, probably within two to three years, it will strike again – either to take more of Ukraine or to threaten NATO’s eastern members directly, most likely starting with the Baltic states.
But the worst-case scenario is even more terrifying. When I discussed Niall Ferguson’s analysis at last year’s Consilium conference (Why it’s dangerously misguided to ignore threat of new axis, 29 October 2024), he warned that Russia’s success in Ukraine could trigger multiple global crises.
If Ukraine falls, China might move on Taiwan, calculating that US deterrence is at a low point. Iran could escalate in the Middle East through its proxies. North Korea might fire missiles over Japan or even test nuclear weapons in a show of defiance. Aggressive powers will all be emboldened if America leaves Ukraine to Putin.
Meanwhile, Eastern European countries like Poland and the Baltic states will feel compelled to accelerate their rearmament. Some might even pursue nuclear weapons. Indeed, the lesson for every medium-sized power will be that only nuclear weapons truly guarantee security.
What we are witnessing is thus the end of the post-World War II international order. German foreign affairs expert Thomas Jäger put it starkly: “The rules-based international order existed only as long as it was supported by US power. That is over. It has not existed since 12 February 2025.”
The old rules-based order Jäger refers to was built on international law, mutual defence commitments and secure borders – all policed by the US.
The new world emerging will be more like the 19th century: great powers pursuing their interests through force – and smaller nations forced to accept their fate. That order terminated with the two world wars.
This time, it will be worse. Today’s great powers have nuclear weapons, cyber warfare capabilities and a whole arsenal of tools for destabilising other countries through disinformation and economic coercion.
The problems are exacerbated by Trump’s open flirtation with fascist ideology. Over the weekend, Trump posted on social media that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” It was a statement reminiscent of the great ideologue of Nazism, Carl Schmitt. Three generations ago, it was the US liberating the world of fascism. Today, it is the US President espousing Schmittian thinking.
Few have grasped just how dangerous this moment is. Europe has been caught completely off guard, despite all the warning signs and the experience of Trump’s first presidency.
When future historians write about the end of Pax Americana and the Western-led international order, they will mark last week as the week it died. The short peace that may follow will be fragile. The world that emerges will be darker, more brutal and more dangerous than most people (and practically everyone in New Zealand) imagine.
A new era in international relations has begun. As President Trump celebrated his call with Putin, he spoke excitedly of “the great benefit” of their nations “working together.”
What he really announced that day was not peace but surrender – not just of Ukraine, but of the entire post-war order that made the West secure and prosperous since 1945.
It will not come back.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE
When Trump nominated J.D. Vance as his running mate last year, I warned of precisely this scenario (Europe is now on its own, 23 July 2024). Back then, I pointed out that Vance’s isolationist stance would severely undermine trans-Atlantic security cooperation. This is exactly what is now happening.
Predictable though these developments were, they are still shocking. Not since the end of World War II has there been such a dramatic shift in the global security architecture. And rarely has a great power abandoned its allies with such devastating consequences.
If you are not sure just how dramatic the events of the last week are, think about them this way. When World War II was coming to an end, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin met at Yalta to plan post-war Europe. But they did not invite Hitler to these discussions.
Now, as the Ukraine War appears to be ending, it is the aggressor (Putin) and a sympathetic US President planning Ukraine’s future.
Meanwhile, Ukraine and America’s European allies are effectively excluded from the talks.
As Estonia’s former Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, now EU foreign policy chief, put it, “Why are we giving Russia everything they want even before negotiations have started?”
The dangers of this approach are enormous. A victory for Putin would embolden every authoritarian regime worldwide. It would signal that military aggression pays, that nuclear blackmail works, and that the West’s security alliance is not worth the paper it is written on.
Let us be clear about what is happening. The US is not just abandoning Ukraine. By pre-emptively ruling out NATO membership and accepting Russia’s territorial gains, Washington is capitulating to Moscow’s demands before negotiations even begin.
As former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt observed on X, “It’s certainly an innovative approach to a negotiation to make very major concessions even before they have started. Not even Chamberlain went that low in 1938.”
The Munich Agreement of 1938 is indeed the obvious historical parallel – except this time is worse. At least Czechoslovakia was present at Munich when Britain and France forced it to surrender the Sudetenland to Hitler. By contrast, Ukraine is simply being informed of its fate.
Just as letting Hitler take the Sudetenland did not prevent World War II but made it more likely, surrendering Ukrainian territory to Putin will not bring peace. As I noted last year (Europe’s precarious security could invite Putin to expand war, 26 January 2024), European weakness will only encourage Putin further.
Former Trump officials are sounding the alarm, too. John Bolton, Trump’s former National Security Advisor, warns that Putin is essentially waiting for Trump to “surrender” Ukraine. Another former National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster, cautions that abandoning Ukraine would be a gift to the “axis of aggressors” – Moscow, Tehran, Beijing and Pyongyang. They are both right.
The most likely scenario is frightening enough. Russia will use any ceasefire to regroup and rearm. Once ready, probably within two to three years, it will strike again – either to take more of Ukraine or to threaten NATO’s eastern members directly, most likely starting with the Baltic states.
But the worst-case scenario is even more terrifying. When I discussed Niall Ferguson’s analysis at last year’s Consilium conference (Why it’s dangerously misguided to ignore threat of new axis, 29 October 2024), he warned that Russia’s success in Ukraine could trigger multiple global crises.
If Ukraine falls, China might move on Taiwan, calculating that US deterrence is at a low point. Iran could escalate in the Middle East through its proxies. North Korea might fire missiles over Japan or even test nuclear weapons in a show of defiance. Aggressive powers will all be emboldened if America leaves Ukraine to Putin.
Meanwhile, Eastern European countries like Poland and the Baltic states will feel compelled to accelerate their rearmament. Some might even pursue nuclear weapons. Indeed, the lesson for every medium-sized power will be that only nuclear weapons truly guarantee security.
What we are witnessing is thus the end of the post-World War II international order. German foreign affairs expert Thomas Jäger put it starkly: “The rules-based international order existed only as long as it was supported by US power. That is over. It has not existed since 12 February 2025.”
The old rules-based order Jäger refers to was built on international law, mutual defence commitments and secure borders – all policed by the US.
The new world emerging will be more like the 19th century: great powers pursuing their interests through force – and smaller nations forced to accept their fate. That order terminated with the two world wars.
This time, it will be worse. Today’s great powers have nuclear weapons, cyber warfare capabilities and a whole arsenal of tools for destabilising other countries through disinformation and economic coercion.
The problems are exacerbated by Trump’s open flirtation with fascist ideology. Over the weekend, Trump posted on social media that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” It was a statement reminiscent of the great ideologue of Nazism, Carl Schmitt. Three generations ago, it was the US liberating the world of fascism. Today, it is the US President espousing Schmittian thinking.
Few have grasped just how dangerous this moment is. Europe has been caught completely off guard, despite all the warning signs and the experience of Trump’s first presidency.
When future historians write about the end of Pax Americana and the Western-led international order, they will mark last week as the week it died. The short peace that may follow will be fragile. The world that emerges will be darker, more brutal and more dangerous than most people (and practically everyone in New Zealand) imagine.
A new era in international relations has begun. As President Trump celebrated his call with Putin, he spoke excitedly of “the great benefit” of their nations “working together.”
What he really announced that day was not peace but surrender – not just of Ukraine, but of the entire post-war order that made the West secure and prosperous since 1945.
It will not come back.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE
11 comments:
European countries are only giving into Russia to the extent that they expect the US to fund everything and take the initiative. I'd rather that the US concentrates on the Pacific and the numerous threats there.
Europe seems to have abandoned many of the values it had post WW2. Many western countries, including our own, have as well. The citizens feel disenfranchised. There is not the same unity within countries now. The intensive immigration policies have taken away each of the European countries unique qualities. I think we need to see what transpires.
Bolton et al are nothing but warmongers that want to perpetuate the situation.
Great speech by JD Vance and time for a change to the madness continuing.
Thats a bit rich Oliver , bagging America without a reminder of your European ancestory who just expected USA to fund their protection.
Sounds like this is a wake-up call to Europe to sort out its own defense, instead of relying on the US.
As we've seen with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia isn't the threat it once was. It shouldn't be beyond a "unified" Europe to establish a suitable military deterrent.
So tell me, Anon 4.40, precisely how will a concentration by the US on the Pacific protect New Zealand from the Chinese threat. Trump owes us nothing. We have already proved our disloyalty by banning the USS Buchanan. The US walked away from ANZUS as a result and technically nothing has changed because we are still nuclear-free by law. We can't even buy protection from the US because we have nothing to sell them they don't already grow. Perhaps our participation in 5-Eyes might be a bargaining chip. After all the intel we gather does us no good. To the contrary, it makes us a target in the event of hostilities. But we can't even trust Trump not to slap an excise tax (I should say, increase the existing excise taxes) on our current exports given his most recent "reciprocal tariff" executive order. So why should we trust him to consider our defence interests. As long as Trump is in charge, as Hartwich has eloquently pointed out, the US can never be trusted to do the right thing.
Pretty hard to take articles like this seriously when they overlook inconvenient truths such as Europe’s war against its own citizens. Firewalls to limit voters’ choices, strangling red-tape for businesses (domestic and foreign), elections being annulled because they don’t like the result, magazines being shut down because they don’t like what they say, people arrested because they don’t like what they think, and sports and arts bodies allowing men to usurp women’s opportunities. All the while they let illegal and refugee male immigrants steal, rape, riot and murder with impunity.
Europe isn’t aligned with any healthy democracy’s values —certainly not ours. Or, at least, what ours used to be.
So why should the US or anyone save them when they have no interest in saving themselves?
Vance’s speech in Munich was on the money — I saw they all had notepads, let’s hope they took notes.
The author really should really be asking why? What have they to gain from these ‘soviet-era policies’ —where is the pay-off? Someone always gets rich and powerful, so who is it here?
And why is he so quick to label Trump fascist while so slow to acknowledge that’s exactly what Europe is? Dictatorial leader (EU), centralised autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, high tariffs etc
As Trump said, why are there so many German cars in America, but no vice-versa (not all American cars suck).
Why do we get slapped with massive customs duties for sending gifts - whether bought or homemade - to Europe?
Europe wants America’s money while expecting to be allowed to bully with impunity.
It’s hard to believe you’re so poorly informed but here we are.
“ As Estonia’s former Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, now EU foreign policy chief, put it, “Why are we giving Russia everything they want even before negotiations have started?””
No one’s “giving” Russia anything. As even belatedly the MSM has concluded Russia is winning. Ukraine has lost 3 armies now & run out of men to produce a 4th.
The winner of a conflict dictates the terms. Much like in Yulta.
Probably should point out that the conclusion to this war has been reached at least twice since it began. Everytime the west has scuttled the agreement before it could be implemented & urged the Ukrainians to “fight on”
That road is over & the wests meddling in Ukraine is coming to an end. Thankfully without WW3
So long as the west & NATO don’t put missiles in bordering countries with Russia there won’t be anymore invasions. The minute the west starts installing missiles I’d expect Russia to defend her interests again
An excellent summation by Dr Hartwich of the European situation since the return of Trump. Churchill once said something like 'there is no such thing as foreign policy, just national self-interest'. The reason why the U S went from isolationist in 1939 to underpinning European security in 1945 is because it became, against its will, embroiled in a catastrophic European war on two occasions and its interests were clearly to play a key part in peaceful military deterrence in Europe. NATO was the result. But Trump lacks the intelligence to see that.
Sounds like so much 'wow is me'. Europe could have stopped this war in its tracks if it had wanted to. Instead Germany was so dependent on Russian energy they weren't interested. Brussels did lots of hand wringing, all while dining out and sipping expensive drinks on the EU tab.
Europe is responsible for its own downfall. How can they jail people for saying nasty things, yet claim they support democracy. They are just a dictorship by committee. Now whining the party may be over.
Believe it or not, Trump has a plan. He sees China as a much bigger threat than Russia, so he's getting between them. Even if I'm wrong (which I'm not), he could well change his mind next week.
Post a Comment