Requiem For The Western Alliance? What’s Next For Ukraine?

Peace will be welcome, but how much solace will there be in knowing that it depends on Putin’s promises?

By Anil Madan

Much has been written about the shockingly bad and shabby treatment of Ukraine’s President Zelensky at the White House just a few days ago. Some have even suggested that the meeting was a setup to humiliate him. I did not see it as a setup, merely the inexperience of Vice President JD Vance trying to goad Zelensky into obsequious acceptance of Trump’s prognostications that Vladimir Putin could be trusted. Abandonment of decency is seldom so elaborately planned. But it can evolve from ignorance, a lack of discipline and from arrogance.

Nor do I believe for a moment we have seen the end of this “peace process” if that term fairly describes Donald Trump’s effort to work a ceasefire and perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize for himself. The latter goal will keep Trump from walking away and letting what he views as HIS initiative die, no matter how much he has threatened to do just that. We will see the prospect of an end to the ongoing hostilities revived and an effort to cajole Zelensky into accepting that he is getting at least an implicit security guarantee, with an explicit one out of reach. I have a hunch about that.

My hunch aside, the incident at the White House has already changed the texture and contours of a peace deal. Those changes, I predict, will happen because in the process of assuaging Trump’s ego, there will be a transfer to European nations and Britain of the responsibility for their own continental security and, in turn, Ukraine’s.

The Trump administration announced an immediate suspension of US military supplies to Ukraine. There were hints that reductions or a stoppage of military training and other forms of cooperation including sharing of military intelligence might also be suspended. This development has, as it well should, raised alarm and concern about whether Europe can take up the slack, and whether we are witnessing the end of NATO, and indeed, the end of the deep bonds that have held the western nations together against the communist ideologies of the Soviet Union and China that have devolved to today’s economic and geopolitical challenges.

Security guarantee

I wrote those introductory paragraphs early on Tuesday and had put aside this commentary to attend to other matters. At that time, I did not know that President Zelensky would send a letter to Trump reaffirming his willingness to sign a deal with the US. But my expectation and suspicion that something would happen to soothe the rupture turned out to be correct. It was not due to any special insight, but rather the understanding that Trump would want to take maximum credit for ending Putin’s attacks on Ukraine — not only for his personal glory but also because he recognizes the transactional value of extracting rare earth minerals in both Ukrainian-controlled territory and the areas under Russian control.

The presence of US businesses in those territories will provide a de facto security guarantee that Putin, who will benefit from such a deal, will not attack. At the same time, Trump has talked about troops from the UK and France being in Ukraine and that allows him to declare that he has caused those countries to share more of the burden that NATO bears. That, as we know from his first term, has been Trump’s long-time goal. The letter that Zelensky sent was carefully drafted, and it would not be surprising if Macron or Starmer had a hand in its creation.

Getting back to the meeting at the White House, it began on a cordial and optimistic note with President Trump welcoming President Zelensky and even stating that it was an honour to have him at the White House. The purpose of the meeting, he said, was to sign an agreement, as he put it, “to getting in and digging and working and getting some of the rare earth.” He allowed that he had been speaking with President Putin and that the confines of a deal had been started. The “big thing” Trump said, was to see an end to the killing of soldiers on both sides.

Of course, Trump couldn’t resist taking a dig at his predecessor, Joe Biden, and blaming him for letting Russia’s war of aggression — heaven forfend that Trump should call it that — get started in the first place. But he did compliment Ukrainian soldiers for being unbelievably brave and great fighters and “you have to be very proud of them.”

Trump went so far as to say the signing of the agreement after lunch was “somewhat of an exciting moment” but the “really exciting moment is when they stop the shooting, and we end up with a deal.”

The opening notes of a requiem

With the table thus set, who would have thought we were listening to the opening notes of a requiem? Yes, to those who see anything and everything that Trump does as sinister, his announcement of having lunch evokes memories of a gangster movie in which the Don (pun intended) has his guests tied to their chairs and proceeds to bash their heads with a baseball bat.

We must, however, pause to reflect that if Trump had thought through just the opening moves of a simple game of checkers — no, it was not a complicated chess match — he would have realized that his road to a Nobel Peace Prize, which is what I think he was after, lies in ensuring that Ukraine feels secure and the only path to that is a security arrangement backed by the US.

Zelensky was gracious but firm. He said that he understood what Europe is ready to do and wanted to discuss what America would do, that is, the security guarantees. Zelensky described Putin as a killer and a terrorist and implored Trump to make it clear that the war had to stop, and that Ukraine would not compromise on its territories. Zelensky made it clear that it was imperative for the US to backstop the UK and France. He went on to discuss some of the atrocities committed by Putin and how untrustworthy his word is.

Zelensky showed Trump photographs of Putin’s atrocities and Trump seemed moved by the photos.

So far, so good. Then began the questions from the press. Reporter after reporter pressed Trump about Ukraine’s security and whether Putin could be relied on not to attack again. Trump’s only response was that he has known Putin for a long time, thinks he is serious about wanting to make a deal, that he wanted to make a deal now and worry about security later. Trump even positioned himself as an arbitrator or mediator, seeming to suggest that such a role precluded leaning toward either Zelensky or Putin.

When a reporter asked directly if Trump would provide security guarantees to Ukraine, Trump said he didn’t want to talk about security guarantees because he wanted to get a deal done and security is about 2% of the problem. He even allowed that the US could “conceivably” commit to putting “people” (troops?) in there. He emphasized that when the deal is done, Russia is not going to want to go back (to war).

Zelensky then went on to explain why a ceasefire without security guarantees would not work — Putin had broken his word 25 times about deals he had signed. Zelensky emphasized the need for security and air defenses.

Reporters continued to press Trump about why he believed that Putin wanted peace and would not attack again.

Ultimately, Trump said the agreement would protect the minerals that the US companies would mine, a suggestion that the deal with the US provided the implicit security that Zelensky was looking for.

Then J.D. Vance spoke up. Perhaps concerned that reporters were not buying Trump’s assurances any more than Zelensky was — and that Zelensky was not being obsequious and sycophantic enough toward Trump — he accused Zelensky of “litigating” the matter before the press.

Zelensky showed that Vance was spouting off about Ukraine without ever having been there and at one point accused Vance of yelling. Zelensky had lost his cool. Trump came to Vance’s rescue and suddenly the tone became dark and the two of them turned on Zelensky.

So, what is going to happen? Zelensky is no fool. He understands that without US military support and intelligence sharing, his country will be at a significant disadvantage against Putin. And looming in the background is the threat that Musk will shut off the Starlink service that keeps Ukraine’s communications networks operating.

It was time to make a deal, even a less than desirable deal.

Threat to Putin

Implicit in Trump’s cutting off aid to Ukraine is the threat to Putin that he can restart the flow of the aid.

Trump will have, in addition to a possible Nobel Peace Prize, achieved his longstanding desire to have Britain and the European NATO countries bear a bigger share of the defense burden. It is not lost on him that greater spending by these countries on defense makes them less competitive in other areas.

The US may have a token presence of personnel in Ukraine to protect the rare earth mineral interests, but Trump is a dealmaker, and he will try to loop Putin into the business of mining especially in those parts of Ukraine that Putin has seized. In return, Putin will see an easing of sanctions and the flow of oil revenues into Russia, something that its economy desperately needs. Membership restored in the G-8 will give back Putin some respectability.

The danger in all this is that Europe will most likely feel forced to form a cohesive defense force with a large army of soldiers, a significant military buildup, with naval and space components, and perhaps even nuclear proliferation among European countries. One possibility is that British and French nuclear weapons will be deployed across Europe.

We are in for quite a mess.

Peace will be welcome, but how much solace will there be in knowing that it depends on Putin’s promises?

Cheerz…
Bwana

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 7 March 2025