Trump still values Britain. Brandon Bell/Getty Images
“The lamps are going out all over Europe,” remarked British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey on the eve of the First World War. Judging by the commentary of the British press recently, one would think this was about to happen again. We are told that Donald Trump’s negotiations to end the war in Ukraine are tantamount to Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler at Munich, and that the transatlantic relationship is dead. The Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf went so far as to write: “The US is now the enemy of the West.” But none of this is true. The analogy is flawed, the analysis is ill-informed, and above all the prediction is dangerous hyperbole.
How often have the Fleet Street sophists cried out that every adversary is the new Hitler and every compromise another Munich? Yet do they really understand what happened there? Chamberlain went to Munich with two objectives, the first necessary and the second noble. He sought to buy time for Britain to rearm and in this he was highly successful: the acceleration of aircraft production in 1938 and 1939 proved crucial to winning the Battle of Britain. At the same time, he gambled to give peace a chance and avoid repeating the carnage of the First World War. He lost that bet, but at the time no one could have been completely certain of Germany’s intentions. Had Hitler proven trustworthy, we would perhaps never have heard of Winston Churchill.
Unlike Chamberlain at Munich, Donald Trump is not trying to rearm for a looming conflict with Russia. He is trying to normalise relations with a nuclear-armed power. While Ukraine is important, so is Russia’s cooperation on many other issues, such as containing Iran’s nuclear programme, stabilising Syria, and shaping global energy markets. Above all, Trump is seeking to reverse the strategic own goal of driving Russia into the arms of China with ceaseless Nato expansion.
Nor is Trump trying to avoid a new war. He is trying to end one by stating obvious facts: Ukraine cannot win back lost territory without massive American assistance; the US is not going to go to war with Russia so that Ukraine can join Nato; and the longer the war goes on, the more territory Ukraine will lose. The terms of a negotiated settlement have been equally obvious for years. These are: a neutral Ukraine, a plebiscite to determine if Russian-speaking regions wish to remain part of Ukraine, and international assistance to rebuild the country. These terms will be easier to accept once Europe recognises that while Russia started the war, it was provoked by Nato expansion. Just as the US could not tolerate Russian missiles in Cuba or Chinese control of the Panama Canal, Russia could not accept its only warm water naval base at Sevastopol being handed over to Nato and the US navy.
The “stench of appeasement” has not returned to Munich, as former defence minister Ben Wallace claimed in The Telegraph. The situation is better understood as a replay of the 1945 Yalta Conference, where Churchill, Joseph Stalin and Franklin D. Roosevelt determined the political future of Europe and Ukraine’s current borders. In 1919, the victorious allies had transferred the Austrian city of Lemberg to Poland; at Yalta, Churchill and Roosevelt agreed to transfer the renamed Polish city of Lvov to the Soviet Union, where it became the Ukrainian city of Lviv. On neither occasion were protests from the Austrians or Poles heeded, because in the real world, one can seldom win back at the conference table what has already been lost on the battlefield. If you wish to draw analogies, at least get them right: the war in Ukraine is probably going to end with Ukrainian borders being redrawn, just as they were at Yalta.
Nor are we watching the death of the transatlantic alliance. Europe is unlikely to choose a world order led by China. And the US is unlikely to abandon the most successful alliance in history. That is why Prime Minister Keir Starmer has called American security cooperation indispensable. And it’s why President Trump wants to quickly reach an Anglo-American trade deal. That does not sound like a dying relationship.
The transatlantic relationship does, however, need to change. The unipolar moment upon which the rules-based order rested is over. The US now faces serious rivals and can no longer play the benevolent global hegemon. In 1945, the US produced 28% of the world’s GDP. Today, it is still the single most powerful nation on earth, but its share of global GDP has fallen to 13%. The world has returned to a situation where several great powers have spheres of influence and compete with each other. Any student of history will acknowledge that this is simply a return to normalcy.
In this changing world, the most significant threat to the US comes from China, not Russia. This requires America to pivot towards Asia. It means reducing America’s presence in Europe in order to increase deterrence in Asia, and it means building naval rather than land-based forces. America’s Asian allies, including Australia, Japan, and South Korea, understand this and have increased defence cooperation considerably. They appreciate that, far from encouraging China to attack Taiwan, America’s pivot towards Asia makes defending Taiwan more credible.
This shift in relative power will require changes in Europe. For too long the American horse has pulled the European security cart while smiling politicians rode along tossing coins to their voters. Now, they need to get down and start pushing. Russia is essentially a European problem. And given the EU has 10 times Russia’s GDP, there is no reason Europe cannot defend itself in any but a nuclear confrontation.
In this evolving landscape, Britain must choose whether to be a spectator or a participant. Americans recognise that Britain has contributed far more to collective security than other European nations. Vice President JD Vance’s comment about “random” countries that have not fought a war in 30 years was directed very accurately at other nations of the so-called “coalition of the willing”, not at Britain. Nevertheless, the entire British Army could not fill Wembley stadium. The Royal Navy, once the most formidable in the world, now has more admirals than war ships. While recent efforts to increase Britain’s defence budget are a good start, there is a long way to go. A flag and a national anthem will no longer guarantee any nation a place at the negotiating table.
In 1914, the lights went out in Britain in part due to a jingoistic press, which stoked widespread anti-German sentiment and demonised Kaiser William II. It would be a shame to repeat that mistake today, and Keir Starmer is trying not to. While many European leaders are acting like jilted lovers, Starmer grasps that America remains indispensable to European security. He is preparing his nation for greater effort — and in that sense he does resemble Churchill.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI originally wrote what the article got wrong, but I’ve changed my mind. This article gets so much right, it is an important move of the Overton window.
It may be the “best way” for you to understand the article…
How are your kids doing?
Edit: not surprised you’ve made a major amendment to your original comment.
I suspect this essay will be much too reasonable for some people. Excellent work. I would add that Russia is much weaker than pre-war Germany. Germany didn’t take three years to draw to a stalemate with Poland.
It is a good essay, and a welcome change from the hysteria elsewhere, and on here at times.
There is one major flaw though, and that is the usual guff about NATO causing the war. Countries such as Poland joined NATO of their own free will due to fear of Russia, and given Russia’s actions elsewhere, that is a clearly justified fear. If such countries hadn’t joined NATO they would very probably have either been absorbed into Russia by now, as parts of Ukraine have been, or under a permanently pro-Russia regime such as Belarus.
Stating it’s due to NATO expansion fails to ascribe any motive other than self-defence to Russia, as though it’s an entirely passive and non-agressive entity. Which it clearly isn’t. Putin has even announced his desire to expand/control neighbours over the years. And is it really reasonable to think that countries failing to fund their armed forces to even the minimum level they were supposed to were a threat?
NATO expansion was one of the two root causes of Russia’s invasion, as NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg idiotically blurted out when he crowed about the NATO accession of Finland and Sweden.
Russia had been disquieted about the US (not NATO) building missile bases in Poland and Romania which were capable of firing intermediate-range nuclear Tomahawk missiles; at the time, the US ludicrously claimed the bases were meant as anti-missile defences against an Iranian attack.
So in December 2021, Putin spoke to Biden, and Biden reportedly assured Putin that the US had no intention of building missile bases in Ukraine. Apparently, Moscow was reassured and hopeful that they were getting somewhere. When Lavrov met Blinken a few weeks later, however, Blinken dismissed Biden’s promise and told Lavrov that the US would not let itself be fettered on where it based which missiles, though they might consider discussing the numbers. Russia was back to square one.
The second reason for Russia’s invasion, and the one that dictated the timing, was that Ukraine was gearing up for an all-out assault on Donbass. In the summer of 2021, Ukraine passed an amendment to its Constitution dedicating itself to the military reconquest of Donbass and Crimea. Concurrently, Ukrainian shelling of Donbass increased, as documented by the OSCE observers. The week before the Russian invasion, Ukrainian shelling increased again (incidentally on the day which Biden had predicted would be the date on which Russia would enter the war).
So for Russia, the choice was stark: Now or never. Russia took a week to sort its international law affairs, and then struck.
Clearly, Russia expected Ukraine to come to its senses quickly, and it nearly worked. By end of March, Ukraine and Russia had agreed a settlement, one very favourable to Ukraine and essentially implementing the Minsk Accords. Only the West was not ready for it. So Russia reassessed the situation, realising it had a war on its hands. It took Russia a year to mobilise and train, and in the meantime shore up its defences. So by summer of 2023, and the damp squib of the Ukrainian offensive, Russia was ready.
Thank you. That further helped clarify the article
Thank you for sharing Moscow’s talking points at such length.
Yes, it is good that he shared Moscow’s talking points. For two long we have only heard the talking points of the globalists.
You are well named except for the extra “s”
“Talking points” wholly corroborated by Harvard professor Jeffrey Sachs, who has had forty years of hands-on experience with the parties concerned and whose speech to the European Parliament, about the root causes of the war, two or three weeks ago, is essential viewing.
Stoltenberg’s speech – “President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that. The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997”
Your interpretation of that is that had NATO agreed to this there would have been no invasion, because you appear to trust Putin as a child trusts the strange man offering sweeties. But there is another, less naive, interpretation – that had NATO agreed to the demand, Russia would then have been able to pick off the Eastern European countries as and when he wanted.
The US missile base in Poland is for intercepting incoming missiles. It is not offensive.
You have the same knowledge of private conversations between Biden and Putin nor Blinken and Lavrov as the rest of us, which is none.
The Donbas is, or was, part of Ukraine, where there had been an ‘insurgency since 2014. It was, of course, a Russian-backed insurgency and Ukraine has every right to try to put down that insurgency.
Russia obviously took longer than a week to prepare its invasion of 2022. The invasion was obvious to anyone just watching the news from about Christmas, and will have been in planning long before that.
If Ukraine chose not to accept the terms of whatever was almost agreed after the botched invasion, for whatever reasons, that is up to it as a sovereign nation.
As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
It is also a fact – if Zelensky is to be believed – that he was told at the beginning of the war that Ukraine would never join NATO, but the US would never admit that for public consumption.
It is also a fact, if Jeffrey Sachs is to be believed, that geostrategic genius Jake Sullivan told Sachs, days before Russia invaded, that there would be no reason for a war since Ukraine was never going to join NATO … but the US government would never state as such.
Yes, Russian stooge Sachs.
Frequent guest on Russian television.
Yes, how dare they try to take back their own territory?
The problem with that response is that the counter is easy: How dare Russia defend its own territory, and that of its allies, the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk??!!
The point of the UN Charter, and of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, is that we were supposed to have made 180˚ turn. Instead, we have made the proverbial Baerbockian 360˚ turn, and in the words of Europe’s former star diplomat Josep “the Gardener” Borrell, “the decision will fall on the battlefield”.
So we have made our bed. Now we get to lie in it.
And how dare the Palestinians try to take back their own country?
Utter nonsense.
Countries borders are fictitious entities, sometime agreed upon, often contested and in all cases susceptible to change due to population pressures or big dog politics. How the populations of the Donbas and Crimea would vote in any referendum regarding their preferred national affiliation should dictate the division. Unfortunately given Russia’s recent history of electoral manipulation in the adjacent countries it would be hard to have confidence in the results of any election. However the dominance of Russian speakers in these areas would lead one to think that they probably would prefer to join Russia….if this is the case Ukraine would have little support for their retaining these areas that after all were ceded to Ukraine only 70 or so years ago after being part of the Russian state and arguably only ceded to Ukraine to advantage Khrushchevs career security.
Utter nonsense.
Neighbours of Russia were begging to join NATO because they suffered centuries of Russian genocidal imperialism.
Often in collaboration with Prussia/Germany.
If Russia is not a threat then why did Sweden and Finland join NATO?
You might recall that Russia invaded Finland and Baltic States in 1940 without any justification.
Your lies about Donbas are tedious.
There was Ukrainian independence referendum in 1991 and both Donbas and Luhansk voted over 83% to be part of Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for the same.
If you read assays by Putin and his ideologues it is clear that their aim is genocide of Ukrainian nation.
Russia already tried it once in 1930.
To dismiss the notion that NATO caused the war as ‘guff’ is off-target. Commencing with Clinton in the days of Yeltsin, undertakings, even promises, were made by Western leaders to the Russians not to expand NATO’s boundaries eastwards. When the former Eastern Bloc European countries joined the EU in the early 2000s, these undertakings were repeated by the likes of Blair and Obama. Precisely the opposite happened. Overnight Russia ended up with NATO on its western border, with no buffer states in between. Discussions with Ukraine about EU and NATO membership, that would place that Alliance along a substantial proportion of Russia’s southern border AND absorb Russia’s only warm water port (i.e. not frozen over during the long winters) in Sebastopol, was the final straw for Putin – hence the 2014 invasion of Crimea to protect this vital strategic resource. And Obama and Cameron did nothing, along with Western leadership generally, to address this situation.
Both Yeltsin and Putin separately made overtures to join NATO after the fall of the Berlin Wall! What a missed opportunity! Instead, our wise Western leaders told Russia to Foxtrot Oscar on both occasions, being more interested in LGBTQ++ rights than securing an incredible strengthening of the Alliance in a deteriorating global scenario, with Islamic fundamentalism (fuelled by Iran) and China destabilising the world order in the face of weakness in the Western democracies. We are where we are not because of Russia, but thanks to the appalling lack of visionary leadership by the West ,which has been increasingly crippled politically by its addiction to Woke politics and DEI madness.
All the supposed ‘promises’ not to expand NATO were not made by anyone with authority, and were refuted by those with authority. They are as meaningless as me saying that I promise not to expand Nato.
Poland etc joined NATO before they joined the EU, not the other way round as you imply. It’s not under debate whether Putin likes those countries joining NATO – he clearly doesn’t – but perhaps you should take a step further back and ask why those countries wanted to join NATO. Maybe previous Russian policy and behaviour caused them to not trust Russia? Maybe his statements about regaining the influence of the USSR are to blame?
You are objectively and historically wrong – but let us play along and assume you are right. Let us pretend that George H W Bush, James Baker, Genscher, Kohl, etc. etc. never gave the clear and explicit undertakings on record.
Let us pretend that Bill Burns never sent his “Nyet means nyet” memo. Let us pretend that we don’t have warnings from George Kennan, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Cohen, Henry Kissinger, and even Zbigniew Brzezinski, that NATO expansion would provoke a war with Russia.
At some point in the last 34 years, it must have penetrated even to the densest of Foggy Bottom apparatchiks that Russia was unhappy with NATO expansion.
If the US had an alert and responsive diplomatic service … let me correct that: If the US had the political maturity to listen to its expert diplomats instead of its entrenched Neocons, and if the US were concerned about keeping the peace and adhering to international law, at some point, the US’ diplomatic approach to Russia would have been: “Holy cow, we never realised you were so hung up about this – how can we defuse the situation?”
But no. The Neocon-dictated US “diplomatic” response was: “You lost the Cold War. Suck it up.”
What a terrific reply! Thank you!
Gorbachev denied these assurances were given.
Russia of course can invade a country, murder countless citizens, behave with bestial abandon, and say ‘suck it up’ when people find this abhorrent.
In that case, I’d like to hear you opinion of our 2003, invasion of Iraq. Will you apply the same vitriol to Uncle Sam and the US as you are applying to Putin and Russia?
There is not a single document signed by anyone of authority in the West promising no expansion of NATO.
Whereas we have Budapest memorandum which guarantees Ukraine independence and integrity signed by Russia.
So you are either Russian stooge or one of Lenins usefull idiots in the West.
Take your pick.
Well made points all.
One can only imagine the fate of Poland et al had they not joined NATO.
One wonders about the mindset that searches for blame in the west when Russia is so clearly at fault: an aggressive, paranoid dictatorship repeating the mistakes of its past.
Thank you for your educational response.
It doesn’t take much digging around in Google to find plenty of references made by people in authority to what was promised/undertaken by whom to whom.
“ Commencing with Clinton in the days of Yeltsin, undertakings, even promises, were made by Western leaders to the Russians not to expand NATO’s boundaries eastwards”
Funny that, because Gorbachev, before his death, disagreed with that exact assertion.
Given that no countries on Russia’s Western border are in NATO your comment rests on shaky ground. Russia did not object to the likes of Poland joining NATO when they did and even mentioned joining itself on more than one occasion. The objection to ‘broken promises’ (which Gorbachev denied were ever given) was invented later, as Russia sorted out its internal disruption and reverted to its aggressive self.
Wrong, I know. I lived for more than 4 years in Russia, working quite closely with the Russian Government, the US and UK, before Putin was ever heard of.
Even then I watched as we alienated Russian people, many still smarting over our support for Islamists in Afghanistan, with our support and exploitation for kleptocracy on an unbelievable scale, with our criticism of Russian efforts to counter Islamist terrorism in Chechnya, which extended into Russia, with the placement of missiles in Poland and elsewhere.
When I returned to Europe I was asked to work with Russia and the then Ukraine Government on ways to halt the wholesale theft of Russian gas exports to Europe as it transited Ukraine. That proved impossible, as too many powerful people in Ukraine, and some in Russia, had fat fingers in that pie and western companies were unwilling to commit to proposals for internationalising the pipelines. Only Germany eventually took action by building with Gazprom the first Baltic pipeline in order to by pass Ukrainian kleptocracy.
At the same time the EU was pursuing crazy energy policies that Russia came to believe were designed to undermine their European market. With the so-called colour revolutions, openly backed by the EU and not very covertly sponsored by CIA and USAID, Putin finally flipped. The rest is recent history.
None of this is justification for what he has since done, but it explains his motives, and reveals why, notwithstanding his authoritarian style of governance, he continues to have the support of the great majority of Russian people. Another factor behind that support, exploited by Putin, is the utter horror with which Russian people have observed the rapid corrosion of western civilization in Europe by insane progressive, materialistic social policies.
The disasterous way that Russia moved towards capitalism in the 90s is indeed a mistake. But can you blame the west for the rise of kleptocracy? Or did Russia do that to itself, albeit with bad advice from Western economists (who quite happily mess up everywhere else too)?
You need to listen to the story of Jeffry Sachs, who was allowed to stabilize the Polish ecconomy, and not allowed to do anything for the Russian. The best the got from us, was bad advice, which they ignorantly followed.
Exactly.
It is recurring theme in Russians complaints about the West.
That it is West fault that we are poor etc.
Somehow China and former Soviet Block countries like Poland managed successful transition from communism.
So sorry, Russia is as it is because they never had democracy and even basic human rights.
It is all down to them.
Wrong, I know. I lived for more than 4 years in Russia, working quite closely with the Russian Government, the US and UK, before Putin was ever heard of.
Even then I watched as we alienated Russian people, many still smarting over our support for Islamists in Afghanistan, with our support and exploitation for kleptocracy on an unbelievable scale, with our criticism of Russian efforts to counter Islamist terrorism in Chechnya, which extended into Russia, with the placement of missiles in Poland and elsewhere.
When I returned to Europe I was asked to work with Russia and the then Ukraine Government on ways to halt the wholesale theft of Russian gas exports to Europe as it transited Ukraine. That proved impossible, as too many powerful people in Ukraine, and some in Russia, had fat fingers in that pie and western companies were unwilling to commit to proposals for internationalising the pipelines. Only Germany eventually took action by building with Gazprom the first Baltic pipeline in order to by pass Ukrainian kleptocracy.
At the same time the EU was pursuing crazy energy policies that Russia came to believe were designed to undermine their European market. With the so-called colour revolutions, openly backed by the EU and not very covertly sponsored by CIA and USAID, Putin finally flipped. The rest is recent history.
None of this is justification for what he has since done, but it explains his motives, and reveals why, notwithstanding his authoritarian style of governance, he continues to have the support of the great majority of Russian people. Another factor behind that support, exploited by Putin, is the utter horror with which Russian people have observed the rapid corrosion of western civilization in Europe by insane progressive, materialistic social policies.
Yes, two things things can be true. A: Russia invaded for expansionary reasons. B: A partition of Ukraine is a good outcome.
The other fault is about Taiwan.
“ Renunciation“ is inevitable. If Xi loses Taiwan he loses the Mandate of Heaven and short of cataclysmic war he will never let that happen.
Great post.
For diplomat to not know (or ignore) Putin statements about Ukraine and his comments re neighbours at least since Munich Security conference in 2007 is astonishing.
The main problem is that being nice to Russia is not going to change Russian policy.
They are aligned with China not because of NATO expansion but because of common interests like changing the world order.
While Trumps comments re Europeans expecting USA support for nothing are 100% correct, I am less sure that USA devoid of allies is such a great position to be in.
Part of the problem here is not if the US is with GB, but if GB is with the US. The whole minerals deal was apparently already done between Starmer and Zelensky where Zelensky affirms there was a closed secret part of the that confusingly written 100 year partnership deal which was their own agreement for those after the war ends. This would explain Zelensky’s continually flip flopping on the deal with the US. If this back stab turns out to be true, then Trump walking away from GB would be the least he should do. So what I want to know is what’s the secret deal Starmer did with Zelensky?
The words ‘expansion of NATO’ almost always lead to disappointment.
“These terms will be easier to accept once Europe recognises that while Russia started the war, it was provoked by Nato expansion.”
Nato’s expansion did not bring forth armed conflict with Russia, as we can all see from the historical record.
Ukraine was by no means destined for Nato, for the simple reason that Russian objections were well understood and many Nato members believed it didn’t qualify.
Given what happened to Ukraine, it’s reasonable to harbour extreme doubt that the countries of Eastern Europe would have escaped Russian domination if not brutalization had they remained outside Nato.
P
Main problem with this article is author lack of knowledge of history of this part of Europe.
His request for referendum on Ukraine is total rubbish.
There was Ukrainian independence referendum in 1991.
Both Luhansk and Donbas voted over 83% to be part of Ukraine.
Even Crimea voted 54% for the same.
If Russia is not a threat than why did Sweden and Finland join NATO?
His comments about Lemberg being Austrian city is another example of his ignorance.
It was Polish city for centuries and only became part of Habsburg Empire after Russia, Prussia and Austria partition Poland.
His arguments that Trump is not Chamberlain are not possible to answer yet because we don’t know what agreement re Ukraine can be reached and whether Russia will keep it.
But since we had Budapest memorandum guaranteeing Ukraine independence and territorial integrity which Russia broke, you have to be very naive to be optimistic.
Somehow author failed to mention that USA were signatory of Budapest memorandum as well.
It is early days yet but one of the consequences of Trump statements will be nuclear proliferation.
If you can not trust USA nuclear umbrella than you have to go nuclear yourself.
Japan are already nuclear ready, South Korea and Australia will be soon.
Poland, Finland and Sweden will follow if they have any sense.
If it is reasonable to assess Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as justified on account of NATO expansion, who was that expansion led by? Shouldn’t the country(s) responsible for leading the expansion that has caused so much harm to Ukraine be working harder to make Ukraine whole again? By all means apologise to Russia if you feel you must, but don’t overlook the harm you have caused to Ukraine.
oh, and Vance can’t have been referring to any other country than Britain or France… and he was doing it deliberately.
On the first part of your post – do you remember Donald Rumsfeld’s quip about “Old Europe” (meaning UK, France, Germany, Italy) and “New Europe” (Poland, the Baltics, Hungary, Czechoslovakia)?
My reaction at the time was: He’s got it backwards. The Western Europeans, at the time, were the ones who had learnt the lessons of the 20th century – they were the actually new Europe. The former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union countries: They were looking backward to revanchism and renewing the former glories they had enjoyed before Russia and Germany had brutally cut them down – and dragooning the US to their cause.
The US played these delusions masterfully. The result is plain for all to see.
The newest twist in the tale is that now, Germany is rejoicing in the offer of a blank cheque for rearmament, a resurgent Germany as the dominant military force in Europe.
What possibly could go wrong?
One of the better articles I’ve seen here of late. We’re certainly not abandoning the UK. We just want Europe to take better care of itself. And, yes, China is the competition.
Not abandoning the UK? Well, threatening our friends and allies, Canada and Denmark, is a funny way of doing it.
I wonder if it crossed many minds in America, that a government that sold Afghanistan down the river, and is in doing the same to Ukraine, might not look like a very reliable ally to the Taiwanese and Koreans?
Trump exercises what might be called “tough love”. Canada needs to do more in border related issues and military buildup and reducing unfair trade practices. They would not address them until Trump began the threats. Denmark was ignoring Greenland, which is strategically important, until Trump started talking about buying it. Had it not been for us, the South Koreans would have spent these last several decades under the rule of the Kim family.
Unless you want a dysfunctional family, you will call out even your own loved ones if they are taking advantage of you. This is . . . common sense.
“Had it not been for us…” Ah, so I’m talking to an American.
Right then. Where did you get the idea that the Canadians were practising unfair trade? And where did you get the idea the Danes were ignoring Greenland, and that this was any of America’s business?
High tariffs on dairy and lumber through their Supply Management system. Multiple independent sources which can be found through a Google search.
“COPENHAGEN, DENMARK —
Denmark acknowledged Thursday that it had long neglected the defense of Greenland, a vast and strategically important Arctic island – and one that U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has called vital for U.S. security.”
It does matter to us.
Dairy and lumber? Is that it? Well, everybody does it, to some extent – by restrictions, subsidies (eg American subsidies for green technology) and regulation. These problems are normally ironed out by negotiation, not by grotesque insults and economy-crippling tariffs.
So the Danes neglected to defend Greenland? Have you wondered how Greenland managed to soldier through the Cold War unscathed? If it was worth invading, how come the USSR left it alone?
It doesn’t add up, does it?
Trump is using tariffs (or threats of such) as leverage for a number of things (cf. Columbia). In the case of Canada, the desired assistance includes border control to decrease illegal immigration and the spread of Fentanyl.
As activity in the Arctic by Russia and China increases, so does the importance of Greenland’s strategic position.
Everyone knows that Trump does not observe many of the niceties we have grown accustomed to, and yet his bluntness is often effective in eventually achieving the desired outcome.
Reputable news sources blew the immigrants ‘n’ Fentanyl story out of the water. And Greenland is, as it always was, covered by NATO Article 5 – attack on one considered an attack on all.
Thanks to Trump, Article 5 is dead in the water. No one on this side of the Atlantic thinks that America would ride to the rescue of Estonia, say.
I don’t know if you are aware (or care) that Trump has made America a laughing stock and a pariah around the world. If you’re not bothered about Russia and North Korea being the only friends you have, then there’s nothing more to say. The nearest parallel that I in Britain can think of, is when France became Vichy France between 1940 and 1942. It’s that serious.
It is not an ATTACK on Greenland that is the issue, it is the overall increased military development in the Arctic region that Russia and China are actively pursuing. You want them to have military installations there? Without an active and informed defensive position the US, Canada, and Europe could easily be open to future attacks, cyber or kinetic, or simply destroying infrastructure.
Trump’s comment on Greenland should be taken as a first offer to Denmark to join a negotiation for much more extensive and active US bases in Greenland. The minerals issue is one that will be important in about 100 generations if global warming continues at its current rate.
As usual, Trump’s remarks are taken literally rather than seriously by the Karens of the world. Have you learned nothing by observing Trump for the past 9 years?
If your position is that we are like Vichy France, then I agree that we have nothing left to say to each other.
Illegals immigrants and fentanyl aren’t crossing the border from Canada to America, only very stupid people believe that nonsense.
All Trump has achieved is making Trudeau look competent, which takes some doing!
Actually, more terrorists cross into the US through Canada than Mexico according to FBI stats.
But, you are correct in that Trump’s ham-handed approach is making Justin look brave. (Once again Trump has done something that no one thought he could.)
Greenland is strategically important to America, which has long been a matter of discussion, though given it has NATO protection and America already has access, it does not need to take Greenland over to serve its own security needs there.
The fundamental fallacy in the Author’s argument is Trump abandonment of Ukraine is about peeling Putin away from Xi. Even if that was the strategy, and I believe it’s much more a malign attempt to justify with the Author just one of the useful idiots, it’s bound to fail. Autocrats are like ‘birds of a feather’ and the West is always their unifying enemy. Trump isn’t going to defend Taiwan anymore than Ukraine and he’s ceding space and influence everywhere bar North America to China. And even there he risks pushing Canada and Mexico more into the trading arms of China. And the idea give Putin what he wants in Ukraine and he leaves rest of Europe alone for the birds.
No it’s a smokescreen. Trump no grand strategist. He hates Zelensky because of Hunter Biden, couldn’t give a damn about Ukrainians being murdered by Putin’s missiles and in thrall to Putin’s macho strongman persona. Putin’s wealth and reach with his Oligarchs also appeals.
Author spouts the tripe about NATO enlargement to blame. Moment one reads that you have to ponder the reach of the FSB.
US hasn’t abandoned UK yet but a partial abandonment coming, at least for the period Trump resides in WH. Many downsides to that but a few upsides too. We’re being driven into much enhanced European engagement and strengthening our Armed forces with the potential Keynesian investment surge that may give.
As regards the Chamberlain analogy – when Chamberlain appeased he didn’t get Benes sat down in front of the then international media and undertake a berating, bullying, ambush. No this Grifter driven much more by his narcissistic ego and revenge fixation.
Absolutely right – not all of this article is unreasonable, but Rundell elides Trump’s open bullying of Zelenskyy and Ukraine and his refusal to put any pressure at all on Russia. Then we have Rundell’s repetition of the canard that NATO’s expansion ‘provoked’ the Russians into attacking their neighbours and it’s immediately clear what school of thought he belongs to.
The problem with the so-called ‘realists’ who argue that it is all NATO’s fault (the Mearsheimers of this world) is that they assume the Russian leadership are also ‘realists’ who share their world view. Actually Putin, Patrushev, Naryshkin, Medinsky, Peshkov et al have a world-view that is simultaneously paranoid and deeply cynical, in which no small country has any agency of its own and popular sovereignty is as much of a myth everywhere as it is in Russia. They also have an idea of Russia’s inherent right to ‘greatness’ which bears no relationship either to its economic or its military standing. What the ‘realists’ are effectively saying is that not only can no former Soviet country be allowed to have an independent foreign policy, but it cannot be allowed to have a system of government which Putin perceives as a threat – i.e. anything other than the rebarbative, obscurantist kleptocracy and rule by siloviki which obtains in Russia. And there is an ideological dimension to this too. Putin must be allowed to control Ukraine because St Volodymyr was baptised in Crimea in the 10th century and Kyiv was where the Russian state was founded – and of course because Ukrainians don’t really exist. This is isn’t even a return to the power politics of the 19th century, which at least within Europe provided a recognised place for ‘lesser’ powers such as Portugal or Austria-Hungary, and some measure of diplomatic independence for the more substantial Asian powers such as the Ottoman Empire and China (admittedly it was a different story in the colonial world).
On one thing Rundell is correct – the Munich comparisons are wide of the mark. Not because the Americans aren’t proposing to do to Ukraine what Britain and France did to Czechoslovakia, but because with our support the Ukrainians have managed to fight the Russians to a standstill and massively degrade their conventional forces over the last three years, advantages we will now squander. It is also because for all his faults Chamberlain was a deeply moral man, whose main motivation in 1938 was to avoid another European war, though he had also initiated a huge programme of rearmament to prepare for one if necessary. He was guilty of naivety in his dealings with Hitler, but not of greed, cynicism and bullying like Trump.
‘…in which no small country has any agency of its own and popular sovereignty is as much of a myth everywhere as it is in Russia…’
That’s spot on, and the article misses this aspect entirely – grand statements about ‘realpolitik’, ignoring the fact that it is the vicious, greedy and deluded leaders of the two large countries who are causing the current houghmagandy, not some ineluctable shift in global power structures and coalitions.
Good post. One of the Russians was talking about a triangle of global power this week, between themselves, China and the US. Laughable.
Nuclear weapons aside, in military and economic terms that triangle would look like a straight line drawn between Washington and Beijing.
.. but if you factor in the willingness of Americans to fight, it then looks like a big fat dot over Beijing.
Yet it was Obama who was caught on a hot mic asking one of Putin’s henchmen to wait until after the 2012 election to invade Crimea. Obama didn’t lift a finger to help Ukraine – ever. It was Trump who sent missiles to Ukraine. It was Trump who repeatedly warned the EU about its dependence on Russia. Biden was no better. He put a target on Ukraine when he refused to rule out NATO membership. And Biden didn’t lift a finger to help Ukraine either – until about 1O days in and it looked like Ukraine was having success on the battlefield.
I won’t pretend Trump is some altruistic white knight trying to save the day. But let’s not pretend he’s any different than any other American leader.
Any why exactly would an autocrat trust any other autocrat, especially one building out industry and population near your border in Siberia? Democratically elected leaders have way more constraints than other autocrats.
The failings of Obama (although your first point is factually incorrect) and Biden are partly true, but what we are getting now is of a whole other magnitude from Trump. He inherited a position with Putin on his knees and the amount US committing remarkably low. All he’s been doing is helping his friend Vladimir up off the mat, improving Russian morale whilst clobbering the morale of the Ukrainians. Fortunately the latter are made of sterner stuff than Mr Fragile himself our Don J.
On a detail – Trump in first term allowed Ukraine to buy Javelin missiles that the US military no longer wanted. The US Commanders wanted the next generation kit that was being manufactured so had less need for the existing. Most of the kit US given to Ukraine falls into same category. It’s Generals aren’t stupid. They knew the way to re-equip themselves.
Interesting. Obama does zilch, nothing, nada to help Ukraine. Trump sells them missiles and yet Trump is in bed with Putin. Hmm. Obama could have sold the old missiles as well, but he chose not to. You really have to do some mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion. But Trump says crappy things so he supports tyrants. Meh.
The war needs to end. Just get it done. It’s easy to say let’s bleed Putin dry even more, but there is a real cost in terms of dollars and human lives.
Much Obama can be criticised for, and on that we can agree.
However you are v naive if you think Putin wants peace. He wants a form of capitulation. You got to decide if you are ok with that as it’s what Trump is favouring.
America and Britain started arming and training the Ukrainian forces under Cameron and Obama due to Russia invading the Donbas, but don’t let facts ruin a rant
A most fundamental fallacy in your argument is that the US President is abandoning Ukraine. On the contrary, and aside from all other strategic objectives he is urgently pursuing peace as a first step, for Ukrainians and Russians, instead of a war wherein the horrendous results are not only possible but in fact very likely, if it is permitted to continue on its destructive trajectory. Give peace a reasonable chance.
Again the fact you believe that, or desperately try to, of increasingly zero surprise.
Great post.
But I am sceptical about any real European defence collaboration because Europe lack basic capabilities.
Never mind that policy of major European powers was to appease Putin.
I agree with all the points. Very accurate, calmly argued and highly relevant.
Starmer, to my surprise, is doing a good job with this situation.
Yes, Starmer is doing well. I guess being a lawyer helps you to choose your words carefully.
Cometh the hour, cometh the bespectacled lawyer.
It has crossed my mind that Starmer’s lack of charisma might also be a good thing here: all the better to take heat out of tricky situations.
He is also a knee bender par excellence, or have ‘we’ all forgotten that?
A fantastic piece, worth my subscription alone!
This essay seems like the kind of common sense stuff that the media should be full of, but they’ve all given themselves over to hysteria, TDS, virtue-signalling and whatever other rubbish I’m sick to the back teeth of.
It’s a precarious moment in geopolitics and a shift in the transatlantic alliance – but the US’s reordering of its priorities to suit a changed world is only shocking to those who haven’t been paying attention or who are wilfully ignoring calmer perspectives to push their own political agendas.
Even though this reordering means risks and changes for me, living in Central Europe – any animus I feel right now with regard to Europe’s generally poor condition in all things security is towards European leaders. Their tardiness has got us into this position and – to use an American turn of phrase – their “all hat and no cattle” give-Zelenskyy-one-more-cuddle moral posturing is making it worse.
You’d think there’d be some kind of mea culpa and movement towards owning this, but so far I’m not seeing it. Trump is just too good a foil to pass up on to distract from their own decades-long failings.
I agree, Katharine. But none of this excuses Trump’s behaviour one iota. Basically, he’s throwing forty million people to the wolves, so he can bag himself a Nobel Peace Prize.
If DT had just dropped UA without making any effort to make peace, I’d agree. But he is at least attempting that. Plus, if Europe had built up its own defence capabilities, it could have taken over now – or even have handled this without the US from the off.
Indeed. Some EUcrats even mooted the idea of (borrowing) for a defence investment fund rather than cut any of the bloated services. Heavens above! The bond market will kill us long before Putin does.
Was Mr Rundell a Rhodes Scholar does anyone happen to know?
Sir Edward Grey made his remark upon seeing a lamplighter light lamps in the street outside. A Freudian slip: Britain would not be adversely affected.
There is that scene in the film Jurassic Park where a goat is tied to a post to attract the Tyrannosaur. If the USA has to normalise relations with Russia, would it be helpful to have a British plan proposed to them that would have them put in a position of having to rescue the animals from being the next meal? Security with the allure of fresh meat.
In 1914 the Cabinet had to judge the use of the British Army abroad in the context of a class-based society where it might be needed to quell a revolt in the north. Though not class-based today, Starmer is at the helm of a country where there are varieties of factors that are not disposed to make national unity a certainty.
Not least that Britain is far too sick a country to prepare for war. There are over 2 million people on long term sickness disability benefit. Even if those benefits were abolished entirely it would not make those people fit to be trained even for defence.
Would it be wise for Starmer to be too much like Churchill? Margot Asquith thought that Churchill was ‘pathetically ungrown up.’ Shortly after Britain’s entry into war in 1914 the Cabinet was discussing financing the war. Churchill told them that it was ‘time to make posterity pay.’ In preparing for a defensive war in straitened circumstances, Chamberlain is the prime minister who can rightly take the credit.
All well and good but the author missed an important point namely who is going to pick up the arms to defend the west? The moral bankruptcy visited upon European nations through woke brainwashing and mass immigration from ideologically incompatible cultures doesn’t bode well for our capacity to form a formidable and committed armed forces.
Very good piece,
China is an economic threat to America and the dollar, but in what other respect is it a threat ? Will Americans be persuaded to die for it ?
“US support to maintain UK’s nuclear arsenal is in doubt, experts sayMalcolm Rifkind joins diplomats and analysts urging focus on European cooperation to replace Trident”
How does this square with the article above ?
Evidence?
We have to stop accepting the idea that NATO expanded east. In fact, the former Warsaw Pact states, after nearly 50 years under the soviet boot waned freedom, independence, democracy, liberalism and above all the Western model of life. The former Warsaw Pact states expanded west and weren’t they wise to do so? Now the United States, under the likely Russian stooge Trump is abandoning NATO it is clearly well past time that Europe, including the United Kingdom and Ukraine organised itself into a power capable of defending itself.
A second point, is it possible for the United States to undertake a thorough examination of Donald Trump’s financial affairs and his dependency upon Russian, Chinese and their proxies sources of funding. At the very least European intelligence agencies should have much information particularly given the role of Deutsche bank and Dresdner Bank.
They had that without NATO. NATO provides security in the form of US military might and nuclear missiles. THAT’s what they wanted.
What Putin fears is that NATO membership for Ukraine would put a dispute over Crimea and Russia’s only warm water port as an immediate trigger of war with the US. Trump was right to tell Z that he is close to initiating WW3.
Thank you Mr. Rundell. Well stated, please keep writing.
“… once Europe recognises that while Russia started the war, it was provoked by Nato expansion. Just as the US could not tolerate Russian missiles in Cuba or Chinese control of the Panama Canal, Russia could not accept its only warm water naval base at Sevastopol being handed over to Nato and the US navy.”
Spot on! How refreshing to read an article that finally exposes the real truth behind this awful conflict. Thirty years of utterly incompetent leadership in the West as provoked and alienated Russia, when it should have instead sought to work with Russia against the common foes – China and Islamic fundamentalism’s expansion.
Donald Trump is not a Chamberlain, but he is a Mussolini.
You need brains to be a dictator
A voice of reason that badly needs to be heard, and an excellent essay. The amount of ignorance from the general public and within the MSM is stupefying.
Perhaps the most naive imbecility is to assume, as so many do, that just because Trump is complementary to dictators like Putin and the Rocket Man and apparently friendly then that must mean he is a fan boy and admires them, when it should be pretty obvious that the best chance to gain positive results is to flatter them regardless of his private feelings, which are probably the opposite of those he displays.
So when he says ‘ Covfefe’ he actually means the opposite. I’m glad we cleared that up.
As the late Bertrand Russell put it so appositely:-
“most people would rather die than think and most do”.
Unfortunately, President Trump does a bad job of explaining his thinking.
Despite the headline there was none of the habitual vilification of Neville Chamberlain in this essay, which I for one applaud.
Additionally it correctly castigated the pernicious influence of that ill-educated, jingoistic cretin, Lord Northcliffe for our foolhardy participation in the Great War.
As for the Ukraine conflict Mr Rundell’s essay is most cogent I have yet to read on the subject. Thank you.
If we hadn’t participated then Kaiser Bill’s troops would have been goose stepping down the Champs Elysee by Christmas 1914, and would soon have occupied the whole of France! The French army and the British BEF combined only just stopped them!
Actually, thinking about that, it seems to be a weird tradition for the British Army to start an ultimately successful campaign or war with a retreat! Think of Dunkirk in 1940, the Retreat to the Marne in 1914, the retreat to Quatre Bras in 1815 (before Waterloo), Henry V’s retreat (sort of) towards Calais before Agincourt in 1415. I bet there are more examples I haven’t thought of or am unware of.
I disagree, Moltke had already mishandled/misunderstood the so called Schlieffen Plan as had Rupprecht of Bavaria, with unfortunate results.
To assume that France would have collapsed as it had in 1870 is just not credible.
I don’t think the authors write the headlines. It’s quite obvious that the headlines are written by someone who never read the article, or even AI.
Most cogent?
Really?
Diplomat who is either ignorant of or ignores results of Ukrainian independence referendum of 1991 does not inspire confidence.
Both Donbas and Luhansk voted over 83% to be part of Ukraine.
So all the talk of both regions wanting to be part of Russia is just Russian propaganda.
Then there is small matter of Budapest memorandum of 1994.
Signed by USA.
So people who claim that Trump proposals are similar to Munich agreement are likely to be correct.
Low-grade apologia from an American diplomatic apparatchik. The effort to blame the war on Ukraine for even talking about NATO (it had not made application nor had overtures been made from NATO) is nonsense. It’s the conventional way for apologists to avoid the self-confessed aims of Putin to re-absorb Ukraine (as he is doing with Belarus) as part of regaining control over the parts of the former Czarist and Communist Empires. Putin has been quite up-front about the purpose of his aggression.
Fantasies like that comment from Jung Gassmann are similar but even more unreal. The idea that Russia was frightened because of an imaginary threat that Ukraine was about to invade the Donbas is nonsense. At that time no responsible person in Ukraine would have entertained such a notion, given the state of the polity and economy – and army – in Ukraine.
And so on it goes, the endless contortions to try and absolve Putin of any guilt and lay the blame on NATO or Western Europe.
Putin doesn’t have the wherewithal to occupy anyone. No-one is arguing that Russia was justified in invading Ukraine, just that it is wiser to try to understand the enemy than demonising them.
This is a poor take and built on the premise of America knows best exceptionalism – it doesn’t know better in this instance it’s naive in the extreme, just like the mess in the Middle East.
The specifics of peace in our time don’t line up but the principles here absolutely do. It’s not hysteria to be appalled at the defence of brutal regime invading its neighbour, imagine the UK doing this to the ROI and you’re about there.
We certainly contemplated, even planned invading the ROI during WWII.
Do believe you’ve misunderstood the point.
“It’s not hysteria to be appalled at the defence of brutal regime invading its neighbour”.
Yes it is hysteria, one must learn to exercise more self control.
No it isn’t.. faux stoicism is not the kind of received wisdom that you think it is
In a sensible world of managing risk ……. ?
Would the USA come immediately to the aid of France or the UK if Russia attacked? Six months ago I was sure they would . Today I am less certain. And you cannot run any risks with defence plans. You have to confident.
Yes, this is the correct lens through which to understand the current situation in the West.
NATO never expanded. Not once inch of any border moved. NATO’s membership increased – that is very different.
NATO didn’t move east, those Eastern bloc countries CHOSE to align with the west. There’s a big difference
I read this essay with a sense of relief because this is the direction my own thoughts had been taking and I have seemed to be on my own in this. The demonisation of Trump may be great fun for lefties and media chatterers, but it’s got a bit more serious now and the hysteria is getting in the way of understanding what Trump is doing. He is a typical American really, he’s a consummate salesman and he loves a deal, over which he does not want to lose face. American culture is a bit different from ours (UK) and other European countries in this. Zelensky played his hand badly (see Konstantin Kissin for a great explanation of how and why and how to fix it).
Raving more excellent work. It is what you do. Normalizing that which is not normal and refusing to look beyond into the quagmire of absurdity. All hail Emperor Don.
Apologist scribbles that were tiresome from day one.
Right, right and right again, including his take on Starmer’s efforts which I hope succeed. I also hope sooner rather than later, (but which I mean as soon bas Trump has put an end to the war) Starmer takes the lead in demonstrating a more perceptive understanding of Russia’s (not Putin’s-he will be gone soon) position.
Here is my take after working for nine years( 1994-2003, four of them living in Russia) quite closely with the Russian, US and UK governments.
When living in Russia, before Putin was ever heard of, I watched as we alienated Russian people, many still smarting over our support for Islamists in Afghanistan, with our support and exploitation for kleptocracy on an unbelievable scale, with our criticism of Russian efforts to counter Islamist terrorism in Chechnya, which extended into Russia, and with the placement of missiles in Poland and elsewhere.
When I returned to Europe I was asked to work with Russia and the then Ukraine Government on ways to halt the wholesale theft of Russian gas exports to Europe as it transited Ukraine. That proved impossible, as too many powerful people in Ukraine, and some in Russia, had fat fingers in that pie and western companies were unwilling to commit to proposals for internationalising the pipelines. Only Germany eventually took action by building with Gazprom the first Baltic pipeline in order to by pass Ukrainian kleptocracy.
At the same time the EU was pursuing crazy energy policies that Russia came to believe were designed to undermine their European market. With the so-called colour revolutions, openly backed by the EU and not very covertly sponsored by CIA and USAID, Putin finally flipped. The rest is recent history.
None of this is justification for what he has since done, but it explains his motives, and reveals why, notwithstanding his authoritarian style of governance, he continues to have the support of the great majority of Russian people. Another factor behind that support, exploited by Putin, is the utter horror with which Russian people have observed the rapid corrosion of western civilization in Europe by insane progressive, materialistic social policies.
“America hasn’t abandoned Britain”
Give it a week before it’s decided that Britain “stole” something from the US and has been ripping them off for the last 3,000 years.
The tariff situation is like a child playing with a light switch – they’re on! They’re off! They’re on again! Oooo look I can make it flicker!
As much as I identify more with the political right than left (based on current definitions) the man defining the world order at the moment has the consistency and reliability of a malfunctioning AI taking all its input from Reddit. Nothing can be taken for granted, especially if it was confirmed yesterday.
I’m no fan of the EU, but at least they’re consistent on what they want and how they’ll stab you in the back to get it.
Nice try but you don’t win teachers apple. Of course Trump is no Chamberlain and your historical time point is wrong too. This is not Munich. Dunkirk might be a better reference point and a mixture of Lord Halifax and Joe Kennedy a better comparison. Tremendous amount of post hoc rationalisation in your writings too, much of that incorrect too.
Whilst the manipulation and control of the World by a few big powers is an anathema to me and I equally oppose the EU efforts to turn itself into a fourth military might, this article does shine some resonableness on a complex situation. We have to live with the reality. As usual on UnHerd the comments are intersting and informative.
Excellent article.
Someone finally understands what Trump is trying to do.
Russia was provoked? Utter tosh. This is the logic abusers use to blame their victims.
“Look what you made me do!”
“it’s why President Trump wants to quickly reach an Anglo-American trade deal”.
A most naive view of Trump’s trade policy.
Excellent article. Nice to read someone who actually understands what happened at Munich. I would like to think Trump has a clear strategy but it certainly doesn’t seem so.
Bravo! Clearly European liberal elites and their media sycophants are mourning the loss of their liberal international system with Zelenskyy their figurehead despite it reaching its sell by date.
In its place is the realist international order which historically has been associated with conservative thought. So maybe we can call it the emergence of a conservative international system which views relative power, access to resources especially energy and industrial productive capacity as the organising principles of a multipolar world rather than rights.
Clearly there will still be some role for liberal international institutions such as the UN but they will need to take into consideration a more realist outlook on international relations rather than forever condemning nations for the failure to progressively realise rights which of course are dependent for their realisation on available resources.
A multipolar world and the resource flows that enable power and industrial productive capacity to be realised is why Russia forms part of the trinity despite its smaller share of global GDP compared to the EU. Russia is very well endowed with resources ranging from hydrocarbons, ammonia and rare earth metals whilst the EU has significantly less. Thus Russia is under threat from China as well as the EU which is why NATO expansion provoked the bear.
North America alongside South America are virtually self sufficient in resources so the Americas forms a self contained resource bloc whereas China is reliant on Russia, the Middle and Far East and Australia, especially Australian coal. So China is more unpredictable. Consequently the best thing Europe could do is align with Russia in the form of a Northern Eurasian trading bloc. This would resolve the contested territorial issues within Ukraine which gave rise to a constitutional crisis and then civil war especially that the Donbass and Crimea are predominantly Russian speaking regions which wanted to maintain some degree of autonomy via a Federal State rather than the Unitary State that was being demanded by the EU and the US.
The alternative is for Europe to go it alone and be buffeted like cork on an ocean of geopolitical tensions with very little resources of its own which is why European liberal elites are mourning the loss of their free trading liberal international system in which international institutions ensured a modicum of fair play so that import dependancies could be realised for their migration led population booms. If Europe doesn’t align with Russia and continues to escalate the Ukraine war then Europe will find itself competing with China over foreign land, energy and materials within Africa which could cause intractable problems for future generations in Europe.
Sometimes I wonder, as a hypothetical/counterfactual: What if 2014 Putin would have offered the US a swap: The US gets Crimea, Russia gets all of the rest of Ukraine.
I think the Neocons would have gone for it.
Eisenhower ended the Korean War by telling the South Korean leader that he would end American involvement if he didn’t accept the stalemate. That peace has held for 60 years
“Sir Robin ran away, bravely ran away away!
When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled!”
Stolen from Monty Python but could aptly describe every American military intervention over the last 70 years.
Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Kurds, the Ukrainians….all been abandoned by the yanks once the going got tough
All true.
However that was done via Amarican troops being stationed in South Korea and USA nuclear umbrella.
So far neither USA is proposing to be involved (quite the opposite) nor Russia is willing to accept any foreign troops in Ukraine.
There is no reason why this change of direction (which does indeed make geopolitical sense) could not have been made clear to the Europeans politely but firmly. As it is, the current administration have been gratuitously offensive, probably just because ‘owning the Libs’ that way is their default position and probably also because that is just the sort of man Trump is. Whatever happens from here, that approach will have done unnecessary and lasting harm to the transatlantic relationship.
Trump’s brash and vulgar methods were needed to get the attention of the pantywaists in Europe. It is good to see so many Europeans now talking about standing up for themselves, even if it comes with a dose of hate for Trump and the rest of us. As Starmer has done, they will come to grips with reality soon enough.
Problem is though that for decades USA leaders were telling European leaders to spend more on defence and stop being so reliant on Russia for energy.
Did it work? No.
Like Theodore Roosevelt said (in different context obviously).
Speak softly but carry big stick.
Unfortunately European leaders only understand big stick.
Chamberlain wasn’t any kind of a Chamberlain either, it turns out.
Why can no-one research anything anymore?
Trump is far worse than Chamberlain. At least Chamberlain went to Munich in an attempt, however misguided and historically maligned, to stop Hitler.
Trump is actively aiding and abetting Putin. The question is why? And why do so many Americans seem happy to be subservient to Moscow?
Chamberlain wasn’t misguided when he went to Munich. He knew that, regardless of the outcome, we would need time to rearm.
“Europe is unlikely to choose a world order led by China.”
While most native Europeans wouldn’t choose China, I am not at all so sure about many politicians eg Lammy.
If the yanks are going to be purely transactional and bullying in their dealings then why not go with the Chinese if they offer better terms?
“Donald Trump is no Chamberlain”
Of course he isn’t, Chamberlain had brains snd a long term strategy. Trump is the wobbly wheel on a shopping trolley veering off in multiple directions
If you discount the adulation for Trump as a signal counter force in the culture wars, a cause for much adulation amongst the UnHerd herd, and you discount the point in time snapshot view expounded by this writer as a cause for intervention, what are you left with? Trump claiming he knows the war will stop because he is Putin interlocutor. And the possibility that Putin is not ready for peace, that a war economy suits his persistence. That just as with his excused actions in Georgia and Crimea, and with the fear that demobilization will, as with post-afghanistan, he will bank his advances. But what if he doesn’t. What if he works around the American mining contractors and heads to Moldova or the Baltics next. Once Trump believes he has his Nobel peace prize, as per some envious comparison with Obama, he will leave us in the lurch, maybe leaving NATO as a parting gift. When Ukraine gave up its nukes for an assurance, that at least it believed at the time, it would be protected by the US and the UK, in its mind it entered a binding sovereign agreement. What value that now?
People keep nattering about Munich but we’re beyond that and into the Molotov-Ribbentrop era.
The only element of this essay I don’t like is the idea that Russia was provoked. Russia was and is a threat to Europe, because Russia wishes to be a threat. Dictatorship is like a Ponzi scheme. It cannot stand still, cannot have peace. Wars are its dupes, it’s market. Putin will go again, somewhere else, be it the Baltic states or Poland. If Europe feels threatened, it needs to defend itself. It hasn’t so far and despises the country that has kept it safe.
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
Frankly, I stopped reading this piece as soon as the tired old Putinist lie that it was “the expansion of NATO” that “provoked” poor little Russia to invade Ukraine turned up. This is pure bullshit, a piece of victim-blaming disinformation, a meme created for the consumption of people who are easily mislead and ready to believe anything (or for the army of useful idiots lead by John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs). For God’ sake, NATO is not an autonomous entity with a will of its own that “threatens” anybody. NATO is a defensive alliance with 32 member states, each of which has veto power on any action that the alliance might make, and is simply is not cut out for offensive action. It does not “expand” but simply accepts nations which want to join or need to take advantage of its protective umbrella. BTW “open-door policy” is enshrined in its charter. What does the supposed “threat” posed by NATO that Russia pretends to be so afraid mean? Who on earth is planning to attack or invade Russia? Estonia maybe? Or Poland? Maybe a more distant NATO country, say France? Ridiculous. The only country with expansive ambitions in Europe today is Putin’s Russia. As soon that Putin invaded Ukraine, Sweden and Finland, which had up to then stayed away from NATO membership suddenly changed their minds and rushed under the umbrella of the alliance. Would you called that “expansion”? I am sitting here in Hungary, next door to Ukraine (governed by a Prime Minster who decided to turn into Putin’s servant for reasons know only to himself and maybe his closest circle of cronies, but I remember well who we thought was the threat back when we joined in 1999 (supported by a referendum).
What this piece entirely misses is that the separation of Europe from the US has been the primary foreign policy priority of Russia since 1945. And that President Trump, for whatever reasons, is at last achieving this for President Putin. And there is the knock-on effect of this upon the primary foreign policy priority of China, since 1989, which is to separate Japan from the US.
This is the most sensible article on the subject I have read. The shocking ignorance of even the supposedly educated about the run-up to WW1 and WW2 is an indictment and warning about the credentialed classes. They are seeing to it we are condemned to repeat history.
At least an article expressing common sense without any of the mainstream media hysteria
The endless comparisons with Hitler and Munich are becoming tiresome and, I suspect, less and less effective with every passing day. Europe, however, faces a difficult future. It is a tiny part of the Eurasian continent and must make the best of it. The US won’t interfere nor should it.
I so greatly appreciate this clear-eyed assessment of what’s happening in Ukraine. If hear another mention of “Chamberlain!” and comparisons of Putin to Hitler, I’ll scream. A Russia which can’t get out of the east after 3 years and virtually ruining its military in the process is not going to be Blitzing across the Continent any time soon. It’s simple baby talk dressed up a historical wisdom.
China would absolutely love the Western alliance to be locked into a generations-long US-South Korea commitment in Eastern Europe to keep the latest Hitler in check. China would be more free than ever to commit whatever mischief it preferred in the Pacific.