The Consequences of Retreat from Leadership

Breakfast With Bwana

The shifting U.S. policy towards Europe raises the likelihood of nuclear proliferation, evidenced by discussions of France extending its nuclear umbrella to Germany and UK preparations for potential US withdrawal from the Trident missile program

By Anil Madan

It is difficult to overstate the degree of shock and betrayal that Zelensky and Ukraine, not to mention European countries and Britain felt when the Trump administration pulled the rug out from under Ukraine’s heroic defensive struggle against Russia’s illegal and unprovoked war.

“Perhaps just as important is the likelihood that the changes we are seeing in US policy toward Europe will result in nuclear proliferation. There is already talk that President Macron is willing to extend France’s nuclear umbrella to Germany and there are calls in the UK for Prime Minister Starmer to prepare for the eventuality that Trump may end cooperation on the Trident missile program which undergirds Britain’s deterrence…”

Andriy Zagorodnyuk was Ukraine’s Defense Minister from 2019 to 2020. In an essay for Foreign Affairs, he wrote: “Russia’s immediate objectives are clear: legitimizing its occupation, avoiding accountability for war crimes, evading economic collapse, exerting influence over Ukraine’s security arrangements. Meanwhile, its long-term strategic goals remain unchanged: to subjugate Ukraine, weaken the Western security architecture, and establish a multipolar world dominated by a handful of powerful nations. A deal with the Trump administration that sidelines Ukraine would hasten both Russian short-term and long-term objectives while validating aggression as a legitimate strategy. If Putin emerges victorious after standing on the brink of failure solely because of a sudden shift in US policy, it will reshape global security in dangerous ways.”

Whether President Trump’s actions intended such a consequence, or whether he simply did not calculate the impact of his new policy approach in such stark terms, the reality is that we are witnessing a seismic shift in the way that Europeans and Britain think of Continental security without the U.S. as a partner. To be sure, European and British leaders are both wistful about losing America’s unconditional security backing, and at the same time, resolute about not faltering and being left defenseless.

Gaza and USAID

Aside from Europe and Ukraine, there are two other areas in which US policy has undergone a dramatic shift, one with apparently intended consequences, and the other not clearly so. The first is President Trump’s announced intention for the US to take ownership of the Gaza strip, clean it of the rubble that is left, redevelop it and manage it into the future. The second is that the Trump administration said it is eliminating more than 90% of the foreign aid contracts of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and some $60 billion in assistance worldwide, including assistance for humanitarian and health initiatives.

The reaction of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, and of the Arab countries has been resoundingly negative. Trump’s intention to displace the Gazans from the strip while reconstruction is underway, is viewed as a nonstarter by the Gazans and neighbouring Egypt and Jordan. Only the Israeli right-wingers are enthusiastic supporters. The Gazans view any displacement from the strip as a likely permanent evacuation that will ultimately result in loss of their homes. Regardless of Trump’s statement that the U.S. will own the strip, they see the threat of annexation by Israel as being exponentially increased if Trump’s plan becomes reality. In effect, the Arab countries that have put forward their own plan for reconstruction have said NO to American leadership in this regard.

It is not clear how effective the Arabs will be in redeveloping Gaza and achieving a rapprochement between Israel and the Gazans which will necessarily involve curbing Hamas. Failure to end attacks by Hamas on Israel risks a new round of destruction if Israel should retaliate as it did after October 7, 2023. This is a delicate situation since Israel’s cooperation will be needed if Gaza is to be rebuilt. It is difficult to imagine that an armed Hamas militia will be ignored by Israel. Nor is it realistic to believe that Israel will allow reconstruction of Gaza without ensuring that the tunnel structure is dismantled and no longer in existence.

What does seem clear is that the Arab countries are quite content to challenge American leadership in a way never done before.

The ending of American foreign aid around the world is likely not only to hurt the recipients of American largesse, but also to be a boon to China which continues to invest heavily around the world. America’s abandonment of the poor, hungry and sick of the world and ending its support of so many programs that have extended soft diplomacy and goodwill around the world, mark a sorry retreat of America’s leadership. This will be a public relations coup for China and squander the goodwill built over the past seventy-five years.

The consequences of abandoning Ukraine and withdrawing American support that has long been thought of as the underlayment which holds up the western alliance are profound. The most obvious is, of course, whether Ukraine can survive without American support. Following the debacle at the White House when Zelensky was berated by Trump and Vance, the US cut off supplies of military aid and as well intelligence support to Ukraine. Now that Zelensky has declared his willingness to accept an American ceasefire plan, that aid has been restored. This suggests that Trump does not intend to abandon Zelensky, but we have no comfort about making any predictions in that regard.

Nuclear Umbrella and Proliferation

Perhaps just as important is the likelihood that the changes we are seeing in US policy toward Europe will result in nuclear proliferation. There is already talk that President Macron is willing to extend France’s nuclear umbrella to Germany and there are calls in the UK for Prime Minister Starmer to prepare for the eventuality that Trump may end cooperation on the Trident missile program which undergirds Britain’s deterrence.

Writing in Foreign Affairs, Gideon Rose offers this: “Why did France get the bomb when it was already covered by the American nuclear umbrella? Because French President Charles de Gaulle simply didn’t trust Washington to live up to its security guarantees. Extended deterrence was a shame, he felt, and for Paris to be truly secure, it had no choice but to acquire a nuclear capability of its own. As he put it in 1963, ‘American nuclear weapons remain the essential guarantee of world peace… But it remains that American nuclear power does not necessarily respond immediately to all the eventualities concerning Europe and France. Thus… [we have decided] to equip ourselves with an atomic force that is unique to us.’ The French called this the force de frappe — the ‘strike force.’”

Rose also recounts that John Mearsheimer (an American political scientist and international relations scholar) warned that Ukraine should not give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for a supposed security guarantee. Mearsheimer postulated that Ukraine would eventually need to counter Russian revanchism and that maintaining a nuclear capability was the least problematic way of doing that. “Ukraine cannot defend itself against a nuclear-armed Russia with conventional weapons, and no state, including the United States, is going to extend to it a meaningful security guarantee,” he wrote. “Ukrainian nuclear weapons are the only reliable deterrent to Russian aggression.” But fears of nuclear proliferation outweighed fears of future wars, so post-Soviet Ukraine ended up with a purely conventional military.Read More… Become a Subscriber

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 14 March 2025