TRUMP'S DIKTAT TO EUROPE

Most readers will remember the inflatable Donald Trump baby carried by protesters when the US president visited the United Kingdom in 2018. Evidently I take myself far too seriously, since I am not usually inclined to celebrate the lampooning of world leaders; I strive to remain level-headed and, as far as possible, objective. The analyst's job demands being disinterested and dispassionate whilst recognising that no one can ever fully be such, recognising that not getting angry often demands considerable self-control.

The Trump baby blimp. Credit: Photo by Ritchie333 used under licence, CC BY-SA 4.0; source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=57935634

And so I read the leaked text of the Trump administration's 28-point peace plan for ending the war in Ukraine. On the assumption that the published text is authentic, there must be much anger in Ukraine and across Europe today. The proposals are risible, execrable, or – actually – just bull. And the Trump balloon floats through my mind.

Lest anyone be inclined to think that careful US consideration has gone into the proposals, or that the plan follows a process of elaborating positions and negotiating accommodations to take into account each party's interests (as any agreement must if it is to succeed), one only needs to turn to Point 2 to dispel such notions. There are no typos in the following:

A comprehensive and comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled.

That last sentence is mind-boggling. Who knew you could make ambiguities vanish by simply asserting that they are 'settled'. Groucho Marx will be shooting elephants in his pyjamas all day. Even if one understands what is meant – presumably that the existing situation cannot be challenged, irrespective of any past agreements or interpretations of them – it is shoddy wording.

I take three things from the 28-point plan, which concern the Trump administration's position on NATO, its unwavering conviction Russia's invasion of Ukraine was justified, and Trump's financial greed.

1. Trump and NATO

As is well known, Trump's commitment to NATO is less than robust. He does not seem to see the United States as benefitting from the alliance: indeed, he does not seem to understand it as an alliance of mutual commitments, and thinks the US stands separately from the other allies. When it comes to Ukraine, the Trump administration understands the war as 'Europe's problem'. This is reiterated in Point 4 of the Ukraine peace plan which begins: 'A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States.'

That seems to imply that the US sees itself as a third party and not itself a member of NATO. The fact that Russia is, apparently, okay with the idea of US mediation between it and NATO speaks volumes.

Consistent with the Trump administration's lack of the will to defend Europe was a suggestion from one of his officials earlier this week that a German commander should take control of NATO forces on the continent; the role is traditionally reserved for an American. In other circumstances, one might approve of such a proposal as a way of balancing US dominance within the alliance, but presently it simply sounds like a way of drawing down US commitments to defend Europe.

2. Siding with Russia

The idea that Trump is taking an in-between position does not withstand scrutiny. The latest proposals put this on full display. If implemented, Russia gets many things it wants:

(i) Elections in Ukraine within 100 days – in other words, the likely end of Volodomyr Zelenskyy's tenure and a weaker or more pliant president in Ukraine.

(ii) Russia receives the whole of the Donbas, including territories unconquered, and these will be recognised as 'de facto Russian'. In other words, Russian forces are given a helping hand round the defensive fortifications that they have been unable to penetrate over the past three and a half years.

(iii) Promises that NATO will not 'expand' (to add any new country) and will not deploy troops to Ukraine, with Ukraine to change its constitution to renounce NATO aspirations.

(iv) A cap on the size of Ukraine's military. In other words, combined with the previous point, an insurance that Ukraine is unable to defend itself in the future should Russia invade deeper into the country. The proposals imply it must decommission several hundred thousand serving military personnel.

(iv) Russia's 'reintegration into the global economy' through the lifting of sanctions and its return to the G8.

What does Russia give in return? A rather feeble Point 3 says: 'It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries...' It must withdraw some troops from Kharkiv and Sumy regions, which is a small concession in return for larger territorial gains. Also significant is that 'all parties' will be granted 'amnesty' for war crimes (Point 26). So Russia gets off scot-free from European efforts to hold it accountable for its activities.

The provisions in the event that Russia were to invade further into Ukraine are largely unspecified. Point 10(3): 'If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked.' But, at that point, there is likely no Ukraine to defend because the pledged 'military response' will at best be starting from Poland (where, Point 9 tells us, there will be 'European fighter jets' stationed; the US thus goes out of its way once again to make clear that it does not want to be fighting Russia).

3. Follow the money

Perhaps the most shocking part of the proposals, because it appears to be the most thought through, are Points 12 and 13 on rebuilding Ukraine. Gosh, the Americans even thought about the importance of 'extracting minerals and natural resources' from Ukraine alongside the rebuilding of infrastructure.

Point 13 states that $100bn frozen Russian assets will be used for a US-led rebuilding of Ukraine, with the US taking '50% of the profits from this venture'. It then adds that Europeans are expected to contribute a further $100bn, with no mention of them gaining any profits, whilst the remainder of the frozen Russian assets go to a joint US-Russia investment fund aimed at 'strengthening relations' (between whom? Russia and the US, presumably). The insult to Europeans in all this is striking.

Fnrr...

So yes, it is okay to be angry. The 28-point peace plan looks to have been concocted by an inflatable baby. It is not merely a diktat to Ukraine, but also to the whole of Europe which is told – in Point 11 – that it must give Ukraine 'preferential access' to the EU market.

Point 1 says 'Ukraine's sovereignty will be confirmed.' But the gist of the proposals is to ensure that Ukraine's sovereignty is limited, and European states' sovereignty constricted also, because that is how Trump's administration views the world – only a few great powers are truly sovereign. If Europeans believe they have any agency in international affairs, they cannot roll over and pretend they are saving lives in Ukraine by consenting to this diktat in any shape or form. I do not advocate hot-headed reactions. Europeans should still reject these proposals out of hand, just do so quietly.