Trump The Capitulator

---

 
Will US president Donald Trump be able to forge peace between Russia and Ukraine, or are we facing a repetition of the infamous Munich Agreement? When Britain and France forced Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in 1938, they believed that doing so would ensure long-term peace. But appeasing a revisionist aggressor had the opposite effect, setting the stage for another world war one year later.
If peace means settling all the issues that now divide Russia and Ukraine, the likelihood of achieving such an outcome is extremely slim. The origin of the war lies in Russian president Vladimir Putin’s determination to prevent Ukraine from becoming “anti-Russia,” namely by forcing it back under Kremlin control.
A democratic, sovereign Ukraine that sought cooperation and integration with the West was incompatible with what Putin regards as his historic duty. He has long maintained that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a catastrophe, and that Ukraine is not, in fact, an independent nation-state.
This means that a true peace between Russia and Ukraine will not be possible until Putin has left the Kremlin, and a more realistic vision of Russia’s future has gained ascendancy there. Nothing of the kind appears imminent. But if peace is not possible in the near term, a halt to the fighting and the beginning of a political process to reduce tensions might still be achievable.
Trump’s promise to end the war in 24 hours obviously was never serious. He is now facing a challenge that will take months, not hours. Putin previously made clear that he will not accept a ceasefire that does not result in Russia’s territorial expansion and Ukraine’s political and military submission.
He will now try to extract as much as possible from a direct meeting with Trump, and judging by past meetings between the two men, his maximalist approach could pay off. Recall Trump’s private meeting with Putin in Helsinki in 2018, when he declared that he believed the Russian leader over his own intelligence agencies.
But can Trump really deliver Ukraine to Putin?
In September 1938, Czechoslovakia did not have a choice about what happened to it. It wasn’t even at the table for the discussions in Munich, where Adolf Hitler persuaded French and British leaders to accept its dismemberment.
Within six months, Hitler violated the agreement, and German tanks were rolling into Prague. Trump and Putin are equally adamant that Ukraine should not be at the table. Their intention seems to be to draft an agreement, and then force Ukraine to accept its terms.
Putin will likely be very ambitious with his demands, because he knows that this is his big chance. In his own opening bid, Trump will probably seek a straightforward ceasefire, with political talks later. But Putin will want more.
He will not only press his original demands but also ask for relief from Western sanctions. The risk, of course, is that he will overplay his hand, demanding more than even Trump believes he can deliver.
But even if Putin resists that temptation and the two men agree on territorial and political terms, it is far from certain that Trump can force Ukraine to accept them. In 1938, Czechoslovakia decided not to fight, because its military prospects were essentially hopeless. But Ukraine’s are not. The chances that it would simply swallow a blatantly unjust and unfair diktat are slim to none.
To be sure, there is war fatigue in Ukraine after years of attritional warfare and routine Russian strikes on civilians and critical infrastructure. But the Ukrainians also recognise what is at stake.
In February 2022, almost everyone assumed that they would break under Russian pressure within the space of just days or weeks. But now, three years later, Russia controls only around 19% of Ukraine’s territory. Moreover, Ukraine itself has taken control of territory in Russia’s Kursk region.
While the stakes are existential for Ukraine, they are also very high for the rest of Europe. If a US president not only refuses to acknowledge a brazen act of aggression, but also forces the victim into submission, much of what Nato stands for risks going up in smoke. Would the US still come to the defense of the Baltics or other vulnerable Nato members?
And the risks are not Europe’s alone. What would become of Nato’s security guarantees and alliances in Asia and elsewhere? If the US is unwilling to defend Ukraine, would it really defend Taiwan?
Critical days lie ahead. A new and powerful source of global instability – the US government – must now be reckoned with. - FMT
Carl Bildt is a former prime minister and foreign minister of Sweden.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

---