* Trump’s Ukraine U-Turn

By Shashi P.B.B. Malla

New Direction for Ukraine?

Dominating US foreign policy headlines last week was the abrupt shift Trump has undergone on the Ukraine war.

Sometime back, Trump lamented the “bullsh-t fed to him by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has resisted the US president’s proposals for peace in Ukraine throughout their talks this year.

Abruptly, Trump now announced a plan to deliver more weapons to Ukraine, after their brief pause earlier this month: a proposed arrangement in which European allies in NATO will buy US weapons and then transfer them to Kyiv (CNN/Fareed’s Global Briefing, Fareed Zakaria & Chris Good, July 15).

Simultaneously, Trump also threatened to levy tariffs “at about 100 % percent on Russia if it does not make an agreement to end the war in the next 50 days.

The point is how realistic is the latest Trump ultimatum?

Trump announced these threatening moves alongside NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte, who was visiting Trump in the Oval Office.

Trump has also signalled openness to a package of enhanced sanctions on Russia, which is making its way through Congress, although that legislation appears to have taken a backseat to Trump’s more recent tariff threat.

The big question, as The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser has put it, is whether the mercurial US president, capable of vacillating dramatically on any number policy issues, has changed his mind on Russia and Ukraine in an enduring manner.

The Economist writes: “In short, doubts abound .  .  .

“The military assistance may not be enough to halt the slow, grinding advance of Russian forces in eastern Ukraine .  .  .

“Attitudes to Ukraine remain lukewarm, if not hostile, among Mr Trump’s MAGA devotees and in parts of his administration.”

At The Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire writes that Putin may have made a huge mistake, overplaying his hand significantly by upstaging Trump.

Trump’s changed tone on Putin and shift in Ukraine policy are “not reflective of Trump adopting a new strategic worldview .  .  .

“Trump did not develop a new fondness for Ukraine or  its president, Volodymyr Zelensky .  .  .

“He did not abruptly become a believer in the traditional alliances prized by his predecessors as a counterweight to Moscow .  .  .

“Rather, Trump got insulted .  .  .

“By ignoring Trump’s pleas to end the war and instead ratcheting up the fighting, Putin has made Trump look like the junior partner in the relationship.”

[In plain words: Putin has made Trump look like a damn fool in the international arena, and this is reflected in Trump’s outbursts].

The conservative Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan argued that Trump indeed seems to be coming around.

“Isolationism is essentially emotional,” Noonan wrote.

“You’re angry at the cost of blood and treasure of your country’s international forays and adventures and want to withdraw from the world .  .  .

“Emotionalism .  .  . doesn’t last because emotions change because facts change.”

To Noonan, the isolationism preferred by Trump’s MAGA  base has proven ill-fitting with the facts of Putin’s aggression in Ukraine and the failure [ so far ] of Trump to broker an end to it.

“Mr Trump’s decision” to change tack and resume weapons shipments to Ukraine “isn’t isolationist or internationalist but realistic,” Noonan continued.

“The question is whether he sticks with it and it’s enough .  .  .

“In this decision he again moves against the feelings of his base, or rather its influencers and self-proclaimed leaders .  .  .

Noonan actually doubts “whether his base, or his 77 million voters, are going to abandon him because he’s changing his approach on Ukraine .  .  .

“Walking away from Ukraine was never fully compatible with a lot of conservatives’ Born Fighting DNA .  . .

“Mr Trump has more to lose from sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, whose case is an enduring MAGA obsession.”

As CNN-columnist Stephen Collinson notes: “But the Epstein matter has so far created its own momentum and defied his efforts to quiet it. It is rather curious in this sense, since it seems less pertinent to the lives of millions of Americans than the impact of Trump’s radical policy moves and power grabs, which have repeatedly tested the Constitution and risked harming the economy” (CNN Politics, July 21).

Supporters of Ukraine doubt Trump commitment

However, if these past few months are any indication, there is reason to doubt Trump will stick with his commitment, according to The New York Times star columnists David Sanger and Maggie Haberman (July 16).

They write that even his statements of support for Ukraine on Monday, as he sat in the Oval Office with Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, made clear that he planned to keep his distance from direct ownership of what might come next unless it was a peace agreement.

“This is not Trump’s war,” he told reporters. “This is Biden’s war. This is a Democratic war.”a

Trump seems to have reached the situation where he is acting out of personal pique, and perhaps the discovery that his relationship with the Russian leader isn’t what he might have imagined.

Sanger/Haberman are of the opinion that Trump now finds himself in the position he most hates: “being embarrassed and, worse, appearing to be a paper tiger.”

The tactic Trump is taking seems devised to keep him at least one arm’s length away from the conflict.

By having the Europeans pay for and funnel the arms, Trump may hope that he is not regarded as a direct participant in the war.

But of course, the United States is directly participating: It even hosts the intelligence centre in Germany where British, American and Ukrainian military officers sort through targets.

But Trump has not backed a new security assistance from Congress, which he knows would inflame his MAGA-base and run contrary to its basic demands – often voiced by Vice President JD Vance – to end the cycle of direct American support.

Particularly, he has not pressed Europe to seize the US Dollar $ 300 billion in Russian assets that Moscow had in Western financial institutions when it mounted the invasion in 2022 [A grave mistake and lack of vision by brilliant mastermind Putin].

Trump appears to be vaguely supporting the bill now in the Senate – backed by 85 senators by latest count – that would call for sanctions against countries that are buying Russian energy products, he has not expressly said whether he would actually impose those sanctions.

Marshall Billingslea, who served during Trump’s first term as arms control negotiator and in other roles, noted recently that the president “already has all the legal authority needed to do everything in that bill.”

But Trump appears to want the cover of having Congress act first.

US tariff threat leaves Russia less rattled than relieved

In the Oval Office on Monday, Donald Trump was talking tough, announcing new US arms shipments to Ukraine paid for by European governments, and threatening new tariffs which, if implemented, would hit Russia’s war chest (BBC/Steve Rosenberg, July 18).

But back in Moscow, how did the stock exchange react? It rose 2.7 % percent!

That’s because Russia had been bracing for even tougher sanctions from President Trump.

“Russia and America are moving towards a new round of confrontation over Ukraine,” the tabloid Moskovsky Kagainsomsomolets had warned.

“Trump’s Monday surprise will not be pleasant for our country.”

It wasn’t “pleasant”.

But Russia will be relieved. For example, that the secondary tariffs against Russia’s trading partners [ above all China and India ]will only kick in 50 days from now.

That gives Moscow plenty of time to come up with counter proposals and delay the implementation of  

Nonetheless, Donald Trump’s announcement does represent a tougher approach to Russia.

It also reflects his frustration with Vladimir Putin’s reluctance to sign a peace deal.

Trump’s weapons pledge marks major step forward for

Ukraine

On his return to the White House in January, Donald Trump had made ending Russia’s war in Ukraine one of his foreign policy priorities.

For months, Moscow’s response was: “Yes, but .  .  .”

Yes, Russia said in March, when it welcomed President Trump’s proposal for a comprehensive ceasefire. But first, it said Western military aid and intelligence sharing with Kyiv should end, along with Ukrainian military mobilisation.

Yes, Moscow has been insisting, it wants peace.

But the “root causes” of the war must be resolved first.

The Kremlin views these very differently to how Ukraine and the West see them.

Itargues that the war is the result of external threats to Russia’s security: from Kyiv, NATO, ‘the collective West’.

Yet, in February 2022, it wasn’t Ukraine, NATO or the Wessedt that invaded Russia.

It was Moscow that launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, triggering the largest land war in Europe since World War Two (BBC).

For quite some time, the “Yes, but .  .  . approach enabled Moscow to avoid additional US sanctions, while continuing to prosecute the war.

Keen to improve relations with Russia and negotiate a peace deal on Ukraine, the Trump administration prioritised carrots to sticks in its dealings with Russian officials.

Critics of the Kremlin warned that with the ‘Yes, but  .  .  . modus operandi Russia was playing for time.

But President Trump hoped he could find a way of persuading Vladimir Putin to do a deal.

The Russian president has appeared in no rush to do so. The Kremlin believes it holds the initiative on the battlefield. It insists it wants peace, but on its own terms.

Those terms include an end to Western arms shipments to Ukraine.

From Donald Trump’s announcement it is clear that is not going to happen.

President Trump claims that he is “not happy” with Vladimir Putin.

But disillusionment is a two-way street. Russia, too, has been falling out of love with America’s president.

Moskovsky Komsomolets has written:

“Trump clearly has delusions of grandeur. And a very big mouth” (BBC).

Ukraine proposes bilateral talks with Russia

Kyiv has formally proposed a new round of peace talks with Moscow, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced last Saturday.

The proposal is for talks to be held next week, Zelensky said in his nightly address, adding that the “momentum of the negotiations must be stepped up” (Deutsche Welle/DW).

Overnight Russian attacks kill one, damage critical infrastructure

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Saturday said that Russian forces had fired some 300 drones and 30 missiles overnight.

The attack killed one person in the port city of Odesa and damaged critical infrastructure in the north-eastern city of Sumy.

For the past two months, Russia has unleashed night-time drone and missile assaults on Kyiv in a summer offensive that is straining the city’s air defences, and has it on edge (Reuters, July 19).

The writer can be reached at:

shashimalla125@gmail.com