The President’s public pronouncements certainly suggested so. Yet behind closed doors, a starkly different mood prevailed.
When President Trump later briefed European leaders, his words met not relief but what reports described as “puzzled silence” and profound consternation. One European diplomat reportedly summarised the sentiment thus: America was “stepping away,” leaving Europe to face the storm alone.
What happened last week was not just the latest failed diplomatic act to bring the Ukraine war to an end. No, it rather marked the culmination of Trump’s transactional foreign policy in his second term – so far.
The implications for Europe and the world are profound.
Look beyond Trump’s optimism and check what the phone call actually delivered. Putin offered no shift from Russia’s maximalist demands: Ukraine’s enforced neutrality and the formal ceding of Crimea and four illegally annexed Ukrainian territories.
No immediate ceasefire was agreed – something the US, Ukraine and the Europeans had previously demanded. In short, Russia conceded nothing.
It gets still worse. Trump privately shared his candid assessment with his European counterparts that Putin harboured no genuine desire for peace. Why? Because Russia, in Putin’s view, was “winning.”
This admission alone was chilling. But Trump then signalled that America might “back away” from mediation, saying the war was a “European situation.” It also seems to mean that he is no longer willing to impose new sanctions on Russia, despite suggesting such a step only a couple of weeks earlier.
The episode last week was shocking. But it should not have been surprising. Trump’s withdrawal from Ukraine has been a long time coming.
Having campaigned on ending the war in “24 hours,” Trump started America’s capitulation when he began directly engaging with Moscow just weeks after his inauguration. That move blindsided European allies. The first Trump-Putin call on February 12 occurred without their consultation.
Then came the hammer blows in quick succession. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine. Vice President JD Vance infamously asserted at Munich that American and European values were no longer aligned. And then, of course, there was that infamous meeting with Zelenskyy at the White House on 28 February.
Ever since these events, the direction of travel had been clear. Intermittent peace talks in Saudi Arabia and Istanbul have achieved little beyond prisoner exchanges.
Even when Trump voiced frustration with Putin in late March, threatening secondary tariffs on any country buying Russian oil if Putin did not cooperate on ending the “bloodbath”, nothing changed. It was just a sliver of false hope for the Europeans before Trump realigned himself with Putin.
Europe is now facing the scenario its political leaders have always dreaded the most.
America under Trump appears to be moving towards re-establishing normal, transactional relations with Russia – potentially even pursuing bilateral trade while Ukraine’s war grinds on. Trump’s explicit discussion with Putin about “largescale TRADE with the United States” while signalling reduced American involvement in the rest of Europe points in this direction.
Trump’s recent threat on Truth Social of 50% tariffs on European imports reveals a president who sees the world through the narrow lens of trade grievances and trade deals rather than strategic partnerships.
The consequences for Ukraine are terrifying. Former Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba recently warned that Ukraine could “lose this war” without American support. President Zelenskyy himself made his concerns explicit: “It’s crucial the United States does not distance itself from the talks and the pursuit of peace.”
And Europe? In an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt, military expert Gustav Gressel declared that European nations were completely unprepared to fill America’s void in military, financial and intelligence support. Edward Lucas, writing in The Times, was blunter still: without America, European NATO countries are “all but defenceless” in sustained conflict.
Ben Hodges, the former commanding general of US Army Europe, was equally stark in his assessment. Speaking to German newspaper Bild last week, he warned that America’s abandonment of Ukraine would constitute “a real betrayal of our allies who have supported us for decades.” Hodges dismissed Trump’s approach as a “catastrophic mistake” that demonstrated “a very superficial understanding” of America’s strategic interests.
All that is bad enough, yet a darker scenario looms. What if an emboldened Russia, interpreting American retrenchment as an open invitation, tests NATO’s Article V, requiring all members to respond if any is attacked?
If Russia achieves its aims in Ukraine, will that be the end of Putin’s revisionist ambitions? Gressel thinks not, warning that “after Ukraine, the Europeans would be next,” pointing to Russia’s Baltic Sea activities as deliberate probing of NATO unity.
The Kremlin’s information warfare is already laying the groundwork. Consider a controversial book on Lithuanian history published by a Moscow state institute in March. It even had a foreword contributed by Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov himself.
The publication fundamentally challenges Lithuanian statehood and language distinctiveness. The rhetoric is familiar. It echoes Putin’s 2021 essay denying Ukrainian sovereignty – the ideological prelude to invasion. We know what happened next.
For the Baltics, a future Russian aggression is not abstract theorising but a clear and present danger. As I wrote in a previous column, Russia might leverage military exercises or manufacture a crisis around the Suwałki corridor, a narrow strip of Russian territory between Lithuania and Poland. This would challenge NATO’s resolve precisely when US commitment is in doubt.
Would America come to Europe’s aid in such a scenario? Given current circumstances, the question is almost rhetorical: Obviously, it would not.
The very next day after Trump’s call, Europe pressed ahead with new sanctions against Russia without Washington. So, Europe is now alone – and not only Europe.
America’s withdrawal from its traditional role risks unravelling the entire global security architecture that has largely contained great power conflict for decades.
A new, more dangerous era has arrived.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE
What happened last week was not just the latest failed diplomatic act to bring the Ukraine war to an end. No, it rather marked the culmination of Trump’s transactional foreign policy in his second term – so far.
The implications for Europe and the world are profound.
Look beyond Trump’s optimism and check what the phone call actually delivered. Putin offered no shift from Russia’s maximalist demands: Ukraine’s enforced neutrality and the formal ceding of Crimea and four illegally annexed Ukrainian territories.
No immediate ceasefire was agreed – something the US, Ukraine and the Europeans had previously demanded. In short, Russia conceded nothing.
It gets still worse. Trump privately shared his candid assessment with his European counterparts that Putin harboured no genuine desire for peace. Why? Because Russia, in Putin’s view, was “winning.”
This admission alone was chilling. But Trump then signalled that America might “back away” from mediation, saying the war was a “European situation.” It also seems to mean that he is no longer willing to impose new sanctions on Russia, despite suggesting such a step only a couple of weeks earlier.
The episode last week was shocking. But it should not have been surprising. Trump’s withdrawal from Ukraine has been a long time coming.
Having campaigned on ending the war in “24 hours,” Trump started America’s capitulation when he began directly engaging with Moscow just weeks after his inauguration. That move blindsided European allies. The first Trump-Putin call on February 12 occurred without their consultation.
Then came the hammer blows in quick succession. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine. Vice President JD Vance infamously asserted at Munich that American and European values were no longer aligned. And then, of course, there was that infamous meeting with Zelenskyy at the White House on 28 February.
Ever since these events, the direction of travel had been clear. Intermittent peace talks in Saudi Arabia and Istanbul have achieved little beyond prisoner exchanges.
Even when Trump voiced frustration with Putin in late March, threatening secondary tariffs on any country buying Russian oil if Putin did not cooperate on ending the “bloodbath”, nothing changed. It was just a sliver of false hope for the Europeans before Trump realigned himself with Putin.
Europe is now facing the scenario its political leaders have always dreaded the most.
America under Trump appears to be moving towards re-establishing normal, transactional relations with Russia – potentially even pursuing bilateral trade while Ukraine’s war grinds on. Trump’s explicit discussion with Putin about “largescale TRADE with the United States” while signalling reduced American involvement in the rest of Europe points in this direction.
Trump’s recent threat on Truth Social of 50% tariffs on European imports reveals a president who sees the world through the narrow lens of trade grievances and trade deals rather than strategic partnerships.
The consequences for Ukraine are terrifying. Former Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba recently warned that Ukraine could “lose this war” without American support. President Zelenskyy himself made his concerns explicit: “It’s crucial the United States does not distance itself from the talks and the pursuit of peace.”
And Europe? In an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt, military expert Gustav Gressel declared that European nations were completely unprepared to fill America’s void in military, financial and intelligence support. Edward Lucas, writing in The Times, was blunter still: without America, European NATO countries are “all but defenceless” in sustained conflict.
Ben Hodges, the former commanding general of US Army Europe, was equally stark in his assessment. Speaking to German newspaper Bild last week, he warned that America’s abandonment of Ukraine would constitute “a real betrayal of our allies who have supported us for decades.” Hodges dismissed Trump’s approach as a “catastrophic mistake” that demonstrated “a very superficial understanding” of America’s strategic interests.
All that is bad enough, yet a darker scenario looms. What if an emboldened Russia, interpreting American retrenchment as an open invitation, tests NATO’s Article V, requiring all members to respond if any is attacked?
If Russia achieves its aims in Ukraine, will that be the end of Putin’s revisionist ambitions? Gressel thinks not, warning that “after Ukraine, the Europeans would be next,” pointing to Russia’s Baltic Sea activities as deliberate probing of NATO unity.
The Kremlin’s information warfare is already laying the groundwork. Consider a controversial book on Lithuanian history published by a Moscow state institute in March. It even had a foreword contributed by Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov himself.
The publication fundamentally challenges Lithuanian statehood and language distinctiveness. The rhetoric is familiar. It echoes Putin’s 2021 essay denying Ukrainian sovereignty – the ideological prelude to invasion. We know what happened next.
For the Baltics, a future Russian aggression is not abstract theorising but a clear and present danger. As I wrote in a previous column, Russia might leverage military exercises or manufacture a crisis around the Suwałki corridor, a narrow strip of Russian territory between Lithuania and Poland. This would challenge NATO’s resolve precisely when US commitment is in doubt.
Would America come to Europe’s aid in such a scenario? Given current circumstances, the question is almost rhetorical: Obviously, it would not.
The very next day after Trump’s call, Europe pressed ahead with new sanctions against Russia without Washington. So, Europe is now alone – and not only Europe.
America’s withdrawal from its traditional role risks unravelling the entire global security architecture that has largely contained great power conflict for decades.
A new, more dangerous era has arrived.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE
13 comments:
Dr Harwich is just another handwringing apologist for Europe’s NATO allies freeloading on the back of US heavy lifting in their defence.
But he is right about one thing - nobody should be surprised !
When are these guys going to accept that the Ukraine War is Europe’s problem.
This is just another example of the New World order where Trump is having to reposition the US as a defender of the Free World from a position of strength.
It isn’t his fault that the previous administration left the Country in the weakest position it has been in since WW2. And it is no surprise that Putin, China and Iran are trying to make hay while the sun shines.
They know that it will not be long before the US is back dictating terms for a ceasefire. But in the meantime, we can expect its European NATO allies to take up the slack. Part of Trump’s strategy will be to use a potential withdrawal from Ukraine as a bargaining chip forcing them to enter the fray in a more meaningful way. He is prepared to receive accusations of betrayal in the process (what’s new) but his long term strategy is to force Europe into taking responsibility for its own defence.
Recent commitments from the UK and Germany are indications that this policy is working. But there is still a long way to go before Ukraine is in position to defend itself and even recover some of its lost ground.
For our part, we shouldn’t be in a rush to believe the fearmongers who keep blaming Trump for their past failures.
My guess is that current moves are all part of the business plan. Trump is a deal maker who knows that he can only win from a position of strength.
He also recognises that his fellow poker players are currently the ones with the winning hands. But that will soon change.
Watch this space.
Wow, talk about stretching the truth. Biden had ruled out Ukraine joining NATO, but it is a hammer blow when Trump does it. Biden made zero effort to stop the war, but Trump at least trying is a failure.
Most of the article is emotional claptrap.
As Harvard University has funding from USA taxpayers removed , maybe NZ should follow and lessen the funding / consultation funding to the NZ Initiative. Oliver Hartwich keeps poking the US bear . Thanks for nothing .
Don’t worry Oliver, if it all turns to custard Europe will fight to the last American.
Quote: "...Trump’s withdrawal from Ukraine has been a long time coming. ...". Yes, but it was well-signalled in PRESIDENT Trump's first term. European nations keen on continuing the Ukraine conflict have had the intervening years to prepare without the USA but are only now lamenting the vacuum of USA non-funding (after 80 years of outstanding generosity). What generosity has the EU nations shown towards the USA Oliver? ..........Zero.
So Mr Bibby reckons Trump has a long-term strategy and a business plan to go with it. Pity the rest of the world can't discern what it is. America's allies (or perhaps I should say former allies) would love to know the plan. Perhaps Mr Bibby could pass his inside knowledge on to them. Is Europe to be blamed for taking America's word for eighty years that they were on their side? They won't make that mistake again. Because it seems Vladimir Putin already knows the plan from his asset in the White House, but isn't sharing the details. And the asset is just fine with that so long as he can get hold of those rare earth concessions in Ukraine. Particularly the ones in Russian-held territory. Now that would be a business plan to die for. Oh yes. There"s a strategy and a plan all right, but it's clearly not the one Mr Bibby is thinking about. And it's got nothing to do with making America great again.
Trump is all about Trump. Grandstanding as the saviour of Ukraine hasn't proven workable, so he'll sulk and go home, and blame everyone else. It's never occurred to me that Trump has a strategy that's not just about pushing people around, pursuing vendettas, but exiting when things don't pan out.
My comments are based on observations that any rational person can make by simply studying the history of the NATO relationship since WW2.
It is clear that the current position is a result of European allies taking the US financial contribution, that began with the Marshall Plan, for granted and treated their own responsibilities to the alliance with contempt ever since. Trump is simply saying that it’s time to get real and start paying their way.
He is having to deal with threats to the US economy from more serious aggressive states than Putin’s Russia and it is no surprise that the Europeans are just some of the freeloaders who are being given a wake up call
I don’t imagine that Trump has any attention of abandoning Ukraine in its hour of need but there has to be a restructuring of the defence arrangement and his current negotiations with NATO allies are aimed at bringing that about.
If you’re looking for someone to blame for Ukraine’s current plight then go no further than the Biden and Obama administrations plus European members of NATO who could have put troops on the ground and planes in the air years ago but chose to do nothing.
Putin’s reaction has been to what he sees as a sign of NATO’s weakness - not Trump’s.
My guess is that the new defence arrangement that will end the war is as a result of Trump’s pressure on his NATO allies to get more involved .
You can’t make this up but people like Jonesy and the Western MSM are on a mission to do just that. Same for just about every “flash point” where the Americans are involved throughout the world.
Lord Haw Haw had nothing on these guys.
It seems that no one is like Clive Bibby in using hyperbole to advance his argument. So, Lord Haw Haw had nothing on Jonesy and the Western MSM. He says that you can’t make this up. But you can – he just has. Mr Bibby would have to be the last person to lecture on the history of NATO – he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Post WW2 U S assistance to Europe began in the form of the Marshel Plan, which Churchill described as the most unsordid act in history, hardly treating it ‘with contempt’. It was a non-military humanitarian program. But it soon became obvious that Western Europe in 1945, wreaked and governess, was in danger of being overrun by the Red Army, camped east of the newly formed “Iron Curtin”. American might was all that could deter it. Churchill has also said that there is no such thing as foreign policy, just national self-interest”. Two European wars in the space of thirty years had dragged America in and they believed that a military alliance was the only way of preventing a repetition. They were motivated by self-interest, which is not to say that we should not express our gratitude. The result has been 77 years post NATO of European peace, unprecedented in European history. Yes, Trump is right in calling for a greater European contribution, but why throw the baby out with the bath water?
Clive Bibby was quick to claim in a posting on this newsletter (26/2/22) that Biden was responsible for this war, (as has Trump, who recently claimed that Zelensky actual started it) and to absurdly compare it to the USSR installing inter-continental ballistic missiles on Cuba, capable of carrying nuclear warheads, in 1962. NATO is a defense alliance that has never fired a shot in anger. Three members actually border Russia.
Yawn!
What a difference a day makes when trying to establish the truth.
My critics can’t help themselves as soon as l write something that appears to be at odds with “every man’s” interpretation of history. I shouldn’t need to but here is my response to the criticism of my comments related to Dr Harwich’s article.
I stand by everything l have said in the past especially if it is regurgitated from the “Goebels” files that are keep for years for the sole purpose of criticising my latest comments.
When deliberately taken out of context, any comment written years ago could be misinterpreted to mean anything.
But even with the aid of hindsight, l stand by my earlier comments.
It is the job of my critics to show where l have made things up and to date, in every attempt, they have failed to do so .
For example, l have said many times that the Ukraine war is the prime responsibility of European members of NATO. In that context l have said that the Biden and Obama administrations have blood on their hands because of their failure to force the European allies in NATO to contribute much more towards the defence of Ukraine. Had they done so, Putin would not have invaded. Simple fact - nothing “made up” about it.
I now see one of Trump’s most ardent critics - our own Helen Clark - suggesting that Trump’s policies with regard to that war are more likely to bring about a settlement than all the previous efforts put together.
Or did l just make that up?
Sign of an insecure man; never wrong.
So Ukrainian blood is on Biden's and Obama's hands? Has Putin got anything to do with this human tragedy?
History will judge me as to whether I am or have been right or wrong. No doubt l will often be proved wrong in hindsight and that is what happens if you back your own judgement on the limited information you have in front of you at any one time.
Some of the biggest mistakes in history, made by some of the world’s most capable leaders were attributed to events that took place after decisions were made. If those decisions resulted in huge loss of life, then the people responsible should be held to account and usually are.
In the military, those enquiries are called a court martial and often the officers being held to account are acquitted based on events that were beyond his or her control. In politics, faulty decisions are often covered up as if they never happened when the judgement of people at the top are exposed as inept or corrupt.
We are only now learning how many of those poor decisions were made by the previous US administration during the last four years but few in the MSM or supporters of that regime will own up to being part of it.
It is apparently all the fault of people like me who spoke out against things being done that were clearly not in the interests of the common man and woman.
it is easy to be wise after the event and l am happy to accept judgement of my actions and opinions in hindsight but l have never claimed to have been right all the time. That is just wishfull thinking on the part of my critics because their continued promotion of that lie takes the focus off their own faulty arguments.
End of story.
Post a Comment