Key topics:
- Trump’s Oval Office clash with Zelensky may have been a deliberate setup.
- A minerals deal shifted Trump’s stance on Ukraine’s leadership and security.
- Europe fears US-Russia rapprochement will leave it exposed to aggression.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.
If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.
By Irina Filatova ___STEADY_PAYWALL___
There have been multiple interpretations of what happened in the Oval Office between Trump, Vance and Zelensky. Was the row the result of a misunderstanding or of a set-up to humiliate Zelensky in front of the cameras? After all, if I heard it correctly, at one point at the end Trump said that he wanted “to show the people what we are dealing with”, meaning Zelensky’s intransigence. Some say that the reason for the “ambush” was Trump’s personal grudge against Zelensky from the time when the latter refused to provide Trump with dirt against Biden. Others, that Zelensky started on the wrong note. Instead of expressing his gratitude to the American people and to Trump personally, he came in a “combative mood”.
All of this may be true. Yet the most obvious reason is right in front of our eyes, and yet I have not seen it mentioned yet. One of the main proclaimed goals of Putin’s “special military operation” is the “denazification” of Ukraine. This term, still mysterious to those who have not watched the war from its very beginning in 2014, means simply getting rid of the present Ukrainian leadership, and of Zelensky first and foremost. The reasons for Trump’s and Putin’s dislike of Zelensky are very different, but the outcome is the same: there is no place for Zelensky in the new brave world of the great rapprochement between Trump’s America and Putin’s Russia.
It is not by chance that Trump started demanding a new election in Ukraine and calling Zelensky a dictator right after his 90 minute phone call with Putin. There is surely no doubt that Zelensky’s fate was discussed during this conversation. Obviously, both interlocutors were sure that if such an election were to take place Putin, with Trump’s support, would make sure that a pro–Russian or simply a less belligerent candidate would come to power in Ukraine.
Then suddenly, after Zelensky offered Trump a minerals deal, the demand for an election was dropped, and just before meeting Zelensky in the Oval Office Trump feigned surprise when reminded that he had called Zelensky “a dictator”. He now needed Zelensky to sign the deal and start peace negotiations immediately. Getting rid of him through an election would take time and might not bring the desired effect but, of course, in Trump’s eyes, Zelensky was doomed. He knew perfectly well that Putin would never agree to a peace deal which would allow Zelensky to stay in power. One way or another he would have to go, so at some stage the fall-out between Zelensky and the Trump administration was inevitable.
It is also not by chance that there were no security guarantees in the text of the minerals deal, for which Ukraine and the Europeans had pleaded. So far, Trump has refused to promise anything at all to secure Ukraine’s sovereignty, even if only a backstop in support of European peacekeepers. Many a time Trump said that the deal itself would guarantee peace, and that Russia would not attack American workers and American firms which would come to work in Ukraine’s mines. But if Ukraine were to stay a sovereign independent state free to defend itself and to choose its allies and partners, Russia would, of course, attack it, irrespective of the presence of American firms. After all, it is exactly against such independent Ukraine that Russia has been waging war for three years.
If, however, Russia occupied Ukraine or at least turned it into a nominally independent pseudo–sovereign state, like Belarus (not at all an impossible proposition without the American security guarantees), then, of course, an American business in Ukraine would be safe. Russian and American businesses would probably work together on the exploration and development of Ukrainian mineral deposits, and Trump and Putin would enjoy the fruits of their common victory. Trump would demand the Nobel peace prize he covets and get the profits from the massive mineral deal. Putin would win the glory at home for defeating and “denazifying” Ukraine and for destroying the hated liberal–democratic order. He would also gain money for significantly strengthening his army and security services so as to “maintain law and order” in Ukraine, initiate new “special military operations,” and spread to end the war “is still very, very far away” Russian propaganda throughout the world.
Trump simply has zero interest in Ukraine’s independence. He never said that he was interested in it in principle. On the contrary, even before he came to power, he opined that “Ukraine could be Russia one day”. Once the mineral deal is signed, Ukraine’s independence would actually run counter to his interests. Why waste money on providing defence for Ukraine or beefing up Europe’s defence capabilities, when a peace deal with Russia would give him all the security he would ever want? And, indeed, Russia would certainly not bomb American firms legally working on its own territory (if Ukraine is pronounced a part of Russia) or on the territory of a friendly Ukraine (if it remains nominally independent).
Trump is not very interested in European security either. When he demanded that Europe pays more for its own security (a very good move on Trump’s part), he said: “let Putin do whatever he wants with them” (NATO members which do not pay the agreed proportion of their GDP on defence). But his support for Germany’s AfD, a pro-Putin right-wing party, shows that, like Putin, he may also count on more Europeans coming to see the benefits of aligning with Russia.
I very much doubt that European politicians and analysts do not see that the deal with Russia which satisfies all or most of the Russian demands suits Trump better than any deal offered by Europe which includes the security of Ukraine. This is particularly true now that Russia and the USA are already discussing a deal on the exploration and development of rare earth deposits in the Russia–occupied Donbass. Yet the Europeans are still trying to get involved in the Ukrainian settlement and to get Trump interested in their intermediary role. Keir Starmer, the British prime minister and the author of the nascent Coalition of the Willing, sees its whole purpose as getting Trump interested in a plan, according to which Europe and its allies elsewhere would play an active role in peacekeeping in Ukraine after a peace agreement is signed.
There are several behind Europe’s persistence. The most important of these is that America’s rapprochement with Russia leaves the Europeans exposed to Russian aggression. For many decades NATO has been the guarantee of their security. This shield allowed them to minimize their defence spending, so that on their own, without the USA, they are now incapable of protecting themselves. They need time – not for a lasting peace in Ukraine, which they may see as impossible on Russia’s conditions, but for reorganising and developing their own defence capabilities. Their involvement in the Ukraine deal could buy them some of that time. If they fail, which could easily happen in the new global dispensation, they are completely exposed.
It is an open question whether Trump will leave NATO or not and what he will do with it if he doesn’t. Elon Musk, Trump’s closest advisor and executor, has already tweeted his support for the idea of the USA leaving both the UN and NATO. But European leaders refuse to believe this scenario, or at least they say so. In an interview just after the London meeting g, Alexander Stubb, the president of Finland, said that it was absolutely impossible for the USA to leave NATO, for then it would cease to be a great power. Mark Rutte, NATO’s Secretary General, repeated this sentiment in an interview a day later.
But Trump is a man of the deal, as he told Zelensky in the Oval Office. “Deals is what I do”. Unfortunately for Europe, he sees NATO not as a deal, but as a burden. The need to defend other countries against Russia, the country which now promises him wonderful deals, is certainly not very popular in his books. And even if Trump does not take the USA out of NATO, would he allow it to stick to all its obligations as listed in its Charter? Would the USA army under Trump’s command really defend the Baltic states? Now they have every reason to doubt it.
There is no way in the world that Russia would agree to the presence of any NATO–aligned troops in Ukraine in whatever capacity. Europeans know that too. Starmer’s initiative has already been denounced by Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, as an attempt to prolong the war. Trump has yet to say a word about it. But the Europeans keep trying regardless. Lavrov is, of course, right: despite all the talk of peace, Europe is still showing the will to fight for the dignity of the Free World, as if to prove that it still exists.
But what about Zelensky? Multiple influential actors in the United States, such as Senator Lindsey Graham, who until recently had only praise for Zelensky, now demand his resignation. The leaders of the “Coalition of the Willing” have only one piece of advice for him: find a way to reconcile with Trump. Rutte too said that the only way to peace in Ukraine lies through a reconciliation with Trump’s administration. But how? Whatever Zelensky does plays against him in Trump’s eyes. In his interview in London after the Oval Office spat, Zelensky expressed his deepest gratitude to the United States and said that he expected to maintain this relationship for a very long time “because it’s more than an occasional relationship.” He also said that the end the war with Russia was “still very, very far away”. This brought a new bout of Trump’s wrath on him. Trump accused him of having no interest in a settlement of Ukraine’s war with Russia, and said that he “will not put up with” Zelensky’s sentiments “for much longer”.
This, of course, puts Zelensky in an impossible situation. He may become a liability even to the Europeans despite all the expressions of their respect for his courage and all the honours bestowed on him. It may well be that Europe’s last stand for the “free world” could end with Zelensky’s departure which would remove the last obstacle to a peace deal between the USA and Russia at the expense of Ukraine and without European participation.
Read also:
