Trump and the war in Ukraine

Some thoughts.

What happens if  Trump carries out his threat to no longer pay for the war in Ukraine?

Does the US military/industrial complex thwart him?  

There is the argument that the US military has a deep ideological hatred of all things Soviet and Russian, and so they will resist any attempt to halt the war.  On the other hand Trump does have a huge mandate from the electorate and has made much of the fact that America has been spending billions on Ukraine while ordinary Americans are getting poorer and American government debt is now calculated in tens of trillions.  So how can these two position be aligned?  

Let’s say Trump insists.  I suspect wheels have been in motion for some time.  It is interesting that Putin has already said he is willing to talk to Trump and there is already muttering about possible peace in Ukraine.  

I suggest that the American military upper echelons are not all on the same page.  There are certainly those both in the military and in the intelligence world, mainly CIA and DIA and the intelligence service of the armed forces themselves, led of course by Naval intelligence which has always been the senior service, who think if they can escalate the fighting in Ukraine they can win a war of attrition which will bring Putin down.  They are the torch bearers for a strategy of escalation which began in and has not really altered since Vietnam. Of course the Americans lost rather spectacularly there but elements of the US military have always felt, much as parts of the German military did after WW1, that their strategy would have succeeded and they would have won, save for the treachery of civilians back home. Those elements of the US military would, I suspect, point to the the collapse of the Russian war in Afghanistan and the subsequent collapse of the whole Soviet regime as evidence of the longer term success of their the’ escalate, demoralise and bankrupt’ strategy.

I suspect, however there is another group in both the military and intelligence services which has been pushing a very different strategy.  A strategy which I suspect has powerful allies in the industrial part of military/industrial complex.  This strategy sees great advantage in a peace deal but has had one stumbling block that it has not been able to overcome, namely how to agree to peace without looking weak?  Trump as President solves this wonderfully.  If Biden, after all the tough, ’whatever it takes’ talk had then said, ‘Oh all right this is too expensive to continue’, he and America would have looked weak.  But Trump has said from the start he disagreed with the war, and said the world should no longer expect America to be the world’s policeman paying for everyone else’s wars. For Trump to pull the plug doesn’t make him, America or its military look weak. In fact it makes Trump look stronger. He positions himself and the country he now leads as being quite able to do whatever it wants, when it wants, not held hostage by the previous decisions of a ‘weak’ president or the wishes of junior partners like Europe.  

Trump allows a clean and definitive line to be drawn under previous foreign policy.

But what exactly is the advantage to the US military and its suppliers in ending the shooting war?  The advantage, I suggest, is if they can replacing the shooting war with a new cold war.  There has never been a war as lucrative, nor one which had such sustained and unwavering public support as the cold war. Just because the shooting stops doesn’t mean war and the contracts that come with it have to stop.  Quite the contrary I suspect.  Imagine a situation where Ukraine is divided as Germany was. Where there is a latter-day resurrection of the Berlin Wall, or the Iron Curtain now moved east.  What an opportunity for new bases, defences, listening stations, watch-towers, razor wire, mine fields tanks and check points.  

So that’s my view of what might happen to America’s interest in Ukraine under Trump. What about Europe?

Europe

Of course Russia, I would think, will argue, as they have done before, that Ukraine should be declared a neutral country, not part of NATO.  Would Trump agree to that? I think he might and so, I think might the American military for reasons I will suggest in a minute  What about Ukraine being accepted into the European Union?   This could be seen as a provocation equal to Ukraine joining NATO but I’m not so sure. NATO is first and foremost a military organisation while the European Union is, first and foremost an economic entity. And it’s an entity that would dearly love to get some Russian oil and gas - mainly gas. 

The price hike in energy costs as a result of the Ukraine war, Russia first reducing and then cutting off all supply via its Nordstream pipeline and the other sanctions on Russia (particularly food) have impacted industry and consumers across the Union.  Before the embargo Germany imported 55% of its natural gas from Russia. The direst predictions of economic collapse due to sanctions and the loss Russian gas did not materialise but it is still a fact that Germany, the European Union’s largest economy, is in deep trouble. 

Germany is going to need cheaper energy costs. Both America and Qatar have already hugely increased gas sales to Germany. It has been my opinion from the start that for the American government, concern for the political integrity of Ukraine has been a secondary concern. It plays well in the press and allows all sorts of fine sounding moralising. but I think the realpolitik reason that fuelled the wars in both Ukraine and Syria has been stopping what the American’s saw as the creeping influence of Russia upon Europe due to Europe’s reliance on Russian gas. My view is that we have been drawn into what I call the Great Gas War - it has merely had two fronts. And it’s been all about America doing whatever it felt it had to, to curb what it saw as creeping and dangerous Russian influence on Europe. 

If the war has been, as I suggest, about Russian economic influence on Europe via its gas, then the war has already been won.  If that is so then what need is there to continue with the costly, faltering and unpopular ground war. If my argument is at all correct, then the ground war, the war for the territorial integrity of Ukraine was never the real reason for war; it was more of a public relations cover story for the real war which has been won.  

So how might this play out in Europe? A major factor in all Europe’s political decisions in the next year or two is going to be the state of the German economy . But as with all things European there will be all sorts of conflicting agendas. Germany must have cheaper energy costs especially as Trump goes ahead and imposes tariffs on European industry, particularly its car industry. Germany will have to find ways to offset those tariffs.  It can’t do it by wage cuts,  which leaves energy costs. The obvious American objective in Europe has been and continues to be that Russian gas and the influence, both economic and political, that it buys is forcibly replaced by American gas and influence. 

With this in mind if Ukraine was to become part of Europe would this make a return to the import of Russian gas more likely? It would certainly be easier. You could, of course sweeten the pill by claiming that this was also helping Ukraine - which it would. But however it was spun I doubt the Americans would be happy.

At this point I do not think Germany’s ruling class has the strength to further anger a notoriously undiplomatic President Trump, who is already imposing tariffs on German industry. Any rapprochement with Russia let alone starting to buy their gas is going to risk more Trumpian displeasure .  It’s one thing for Trump to have a ‘better’ relationship with Russia, its quite another for Europe to slip back into Russia’s pocket. 

Added to Germany’s political temerity vis-à-vis America, is the fact that Germany is deeply politically divided.  There is of course the division the progressive press likes to focus upon - what our press calls the rise of the extreme right. I have written and spoke extensively about this and think it is a false narrative not supported by the available facts. As I have already argued the political earthquake of our times is not a swing to the right but rather a full scale abandonment of the centre ground. The swing right narrative is convenient for our political leaders because it says the blame lies entirely with people for being closet facists. My proposed narrative lays the blame on the centre ground parties for having utterly betrayed the people they claimed they cared for. I digress.

I’m concerned here with a different division. Is it a coincidence that the German finance minister Christian Lindner was fired the day after Trump’s election?  I’m not big on coincidence.  Everybody knew that one of the first things Trump was going to do if he was elected is seek to end the war in Ukraine.  The different coalition partners of the German government have been locked in a bitter debate about how to ‘help’ Ukraine. Should they send them 3 billion Euros or a missile system that has a far longer range than any missile Ukraine presently has? A missile system that would enable Ukraine to strike deep into Russia?

There is a part of the German military and perhaps a small part of the population as well who would like to have Germany become a military power again. They see escalating the Ukraine war as a wonderful opportunity. Trump has laid bare a truth about the European Union which is its reliance on American military power. Trump has said many times and will certainly say again, that he does not think America’s allies should any longer expect America to fight their wars for them.  ‘You want a war, you pay for it’ is his message. This is a reality Europe is having to get to grips with.

Does Germany and Europe really want to get drawn into a war of attrition in Ukraine?  Thinking missiles will do the job is foolish. Missiles will almost certainly  guarantee to escalate the war to a dangerous point and make any future rapprochement with Russia far more difficult, but  that’s about all they guarantee.

The sacking of Lindner seems to me to be a power shift in Germany’s political class about growing militarisation and how that plays out in relations with America and Russia.

What about Europe’s other main power, France?  Macron has been cheer leader for the war but I doubt very much that he speaks for the rest of France’s political class -often called ENIacs after the initials of the premiere political university from which a huge number of France’s Presidents and ministers have come.   Macron went there too but Macron is first and foremost a globalist and alumni of Goldman Sachs.  Those are his loyalties and are what separates him from the rest of France’s political elite. 

I think there is an argument that France is quietly happy to observe Germany’s discomfort and will not stand shoulder to shoulder with Germany.  If Germany decides to make the war in Ukraine a European war I am not sure Macron has the power to stand with them. I think it is far too attractive to powerful interests in France to let Germany get itself in trouble as long as it doesn’t spill over and harm France as well. Any weakening of Germany gives France more power within Europe. I’m also not sure the European Central bank (ECB) would be keen on the debt such a war would demand. 

America is in a good place now that Trump is in charge as far as being able to change policy.  If anyone says this is a moral betrayal Trump carries all the blame and he doesn’t give a fig or a fart. Germany and Europe in general, on the other hand, don’t have a convenient Trump. What ‘moral’ justifications will Europe’s leaders, who have talked of the war in Ukraine  as ‘fighting another Hitler’, use as their excuse for backing away from military support for Ukraine? 

A new plan - move the whole show to Georgia.

In the end I think Europe is too divided and has too many conflicting national agendas to be able to replace America as Ukraine’s military backer. But all is not lost for those who want to continue hostilities with Russia, who dream the Reagan-era dream of bringing it down. There is a far better plan that can be run even as everyone talks about peace.  Rather than get mired in a costly war of attrition in Ukraine, why not just shift the whole thing to Georgia?  And there have been some busy little bees preparing the way. 

This is how I think it will work - and I do think it will happen.   Let Trump pull the plug on the Ukraine war.  Let’s face it no one on this side of the pond can stop him. And let’s not forget trump started his first presidency by pulling the plug on Obama’s and the European elite’s favourite wet dream - the TTIP trade agreement. Day one Trump dumped it. Why shouldn’t he start presidency number two dumping another increasingly unpopular policy?

So Trump pulls the plug and Zelensky gets thrown under the bus. He might have to leave Ukraine if the ultra-nationalists really turn on him but I doubt that will trouble anyone in Washington.

Trump pulls the plug and his supporters rejoice and the Pentagon can get out without any whiff of failure or retreat.  Germany and France get caught with their pants down - no one in Washington will cry. The UK with its new government has been a little more fleet of foot and will weather the change in Washington, on this point at least, reasonably well.

Then comes the magic part.  Instead of hugely expensive and controversial troop and weapons commitments in Ukraine, the war moves on to far cheaper, more discrete political meddling in Georgia.  In other words we begin to do in Georgia what we did in the 2010’s in Ukraine.  It worked a treat there it will work in Georgia. The Americans will find dissident groups, fund them, organise them, encourage them and give them all the international press coverage they could ever dream of.  The Russians will fight back with their own meddling. Europe will try to play along with the big boys. We did rather well in Ukraine. The British especially did their part to destabilise Ukraine.

The recent election in Georgia was widely seen as a direct choice between an incumbent pro-Russian party and opposition parties who want to forge closer links to Europe. The pro-russian party won amidst Georgian and international claims of Russian interference, which I am quite wiling to believe. Stand by for any future elections to be interfered with by all sides. This is exactly how things began in Ukraine. 

I’m not in any way saying its fine for Russia to rig elections in Georgia any more than it was fine for them to invade Ukraine.  What I am saying is that the Georgian people could well find themselves on the road to war whether they want it or not. 

I know it is still the approved position to see the war in Ukraine as something noble and morally principled and claim that everyone on both sides of the conflict who has lost a child feels the same way. I am not so sure. I can’t help hearing Zombie by the Cranberries. Should we wish the same upon the people of Georgia? I look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria and have to question how we ‘help’ people. Regardless… the world of realpolitik cares little for moral justifications or qualms.

It’s a simple enough playbook. There will be quite legitimate reasons for unrest in Georgia. All you have to do is fan the flames of that unrest.  Fund and encourage the most angry, most anti-russian elements and ignore any more moderate voices.  Encourage anger, aggression and bitter hatred rather than diplomacy, detente and compromise.  Give pro-Russia Georgians real reasons to think that they have to fight back in similar ways.  Polarise and entrench opinion. Encourage those who advocate any kind of violence, but do so deniably. Russia will match you.  Sooner or later you can then quite legitimately point to Russian and pro-Russian actions that will prove to any observer that Russia is the expansionist threat western hawks having been warning us about.