The diplomatic fallout, an open spat between the world
leaders in a presser, has for the first time shed the respectable veneer of
niceties often associated with meetings at the highest level. Diplomatic snubs,
intentional slighting and cold shouldering are commonplace in strategic
jostling.
Grave disagreements traditionally shunted away from the
public eye have left an image of pleasing civility as the natural accompaniment
of diplomatic engagements. Public display of geniality by heads of state serves
as a natural spring that nourishes bilateral relationships and spawns goodwill.
The spectre of public spat in the White House, which became the talking point
across the world, has changed public perception of diplomacy and exposed the
leaders threadbare.
The world is reeling under the burden of the over
three-year-long Ukraine conflict, which is showing no signs of abatement. Articulating
the need to end this crisis, Trump, in his election campaign, enlisted a peace
deal as one of his top priorities. Advocating the need for a reconciliation
with Russia with utmost clarity even before his inauguration, Trump engaged in
phone conversations with Putin. Following it up, the Trump administration
initiated peace talks with Russian counterparts and held two rounds of
negotiations in Riyadh and Istanbul. However, Europe and Ukraine, the main
stakeholders of the conflict, have been left out of these conversations.
Sidelined by Trump, European leaders, President Macron and
Prime Minister Starmer queued up to the White House and expressed their
interest in being part of the peace deal under the leadership of President
Trump. While working with the Kremlin, Trump proposed a Rare Earth Mineral Deal
with Ukraine wherein Kyiv would use the mineral wealth to repay the $ 500
billion US military assistance provided by the US. The agreement would double
up as a reconstruction investment fund under the joint ownership of the US and
Ukraine. Both countries finalised the initial framework of the agreement with
no mention of security guarantees for Ukraine.
European leaders had laid the ground for the mineral deal
framework ahead of Zelenskyy’s US visit. Along with the deal, a detailed
discussion on the peace plan topped the agenda. However, the last 10 minutes of
the 50-minute conversation shattered the plan, with Zelenskyy preferring
confrontation and contestation in an otherwise freewheeling discussion before
the US media.
Thoroughly briefed by Republican legislatures ahead of the
meeting about Trump’s way of handling things, Zelenskyy indulged in a verbal
spat with the Vice-President JD Vance. Interjected by President Trump,
Zelenskyy, who attempted to educate Vance, haughtily shot off, “During the
war, everybody has problems, even you. But you have a nice ocean and don’t feel
now. But you will feel it in the future. God bless, you will not have war”.
Zelenskyy’s warning changed the tone and tenor of the conversation.
Hailed as the “resistor in Chief” by Europe, Zelenskyy was
eulogised for taking the brunt of Russian neo-imperialism. Ukraine paid a heavy
price to repel the Russian invasion. Displaying extreme valour, Ukrainian
soldiers defended their nation with advanced weaponry, arms and intelligence
provided by the US and the European countries.
In the process, Ukraine suffered severe destruction and lost
one-fifth of its territory. An entire generation was decimated. It might take
decades for Ukraine to get back to pre-war days. In its quest to be part of
NATO, Ukraine became a proxy of the West in a needless war with Russia, which
shouldn’t have happened in the first place.
Since the turn of the century, Ukraine has willingly allowed
itself to become a playground for the US geopolitical pursuits of vanquishing
its former Cold War enemy. American attempts to deepen defence cooperation with
Ukraine, the subsequent colour revolution, regime change, flirtations with
neo-Nazi Azov Brigade and the installation of a pliable leadership at the helm,
has been part of the same game plan. Things went out of control after Kyiv
disregarded Russia’s repeated warnings about its “red lines”, which led Moscow to
launch a “special military operation” in Ukraine on 24th February
2022.
Rallying strongly behind Ukraine and advocating for an
uninterrupted supply of arms, weapons and military assistance to Kyiv, Europe
has ensured that the conflict continues to rage even as thousands of lives are
lost on the battlefield. Turning Ukraine into a pawn in their war against
Russia, Europe and the US celebrated the resolve and determination of Zelenskyy
and honoured him with special invites to every major congregation in the West.
In the past three years, there wasn’t a single event of
strategic importance unattended by President Zelenskyy. Donning the victim
badge of Russia’s imperial tyranny, Zelenskyy and by extension the Ukraine
crisis became the top priority of the collective West. Thrust into limelight, Zelenskyy’s
sense of entitlement heightened. Even former president Biden yelled and
grumbled at Zelenskyy when the latter harped about inadequate help over the
phone.
Zelenskyy’s public spat has exposed his overbearing
demeanour, which met its nemesis in Trump, who pointed that American generosity
can’t be taken for granted. After the coup de grace, European leaders lined up
to express solidarity with Ukraine and Zelenskyy. Soon, the UK convened an
urgent meeting with European leaders including Turkey, the Secretary General of
NATO, the Presidents of the EU Council, the EU Commission and Canada in London.
In pursuit of ‘peace through strength’, all of them agreed to enhance support
to Ukraine and work with Trump for a just and lasting peace.
The ‘EU solidarity’ buzzword sold to the world, in reality
lacks the real muscle. Clearly, the multiple security cooperation agreements that
Zelenskyy signed with European countries only commit to security assistance,
military equipment and economic support. Unlike NATO’s Article 5 provision,
none of these bilateral security agreements obligate parties to deploy military
forces. In fact, despite the talks of Europe standing together, countries are
sceptical about sending troops to Ukraine as openly voiced out by Italy PM
Meloni.
Prior to the US-Ukraine mineral deal, Ukraine signed a
100-year partnership agreement with the UK with the latter as the preferred
partner for Ukraine’s energy sector and critical minerals strategy. The loans
extended by the Europe to Ukraine are majorly profits accrued from Russian frozen
assets. Europe has been thriving under the defence and security umbrella of the
US. Zelenskyy’s slanging match has pushed the envelope further with Trump
stalling military support to Ukraine. In reality Europe’s tall claims of
solidarity woefully falls short of real action.
Spurred by the Zelenskyy’s spat and Trump’s open poser to
Starmer, ‘Could you take on Russia by yourselves?’ the EU executive proposed
pooling 800 billion Euro for REARM package to strengthen EU defence. The
Ukraine conflict, which could have been resolved within the first week of
conflict, was disdainfully turned down by Kyiv. Three years hence, the violence
continues, and Trump’s peace plan and attempts to normalise ties with Russia offered
a hope to resolve the Ukrainian crisis.
Initially, Trump attempted to use China’s economic leverage
in his Ukrainian peace efforts. China’s involvement would have burnished its
global gravitas. But soon Trump recalibrated his approach. Unlike Europe which
believes in more sanctions and creating economic pressure on Russia to bring it
to the table, Trump has preferred the alternate route of opening up embassies
to foster peace talks. Trump’s approach rankled the Cold War obsessed American
deep state and Europe, which considers Russia as an archenemy while ignoring an
imminent threat from a rising China.
Instead getting mired in the Ukrainian sink hole and lament,
ceding space to Beijing to dominate the Indo-Pacific theatre, Trump has pressed
a reverse 1972 President Nixon’s strategic reset. An economically depleted and
demographically weakened Russia is no longer the major threat to the US or even
Europe. However, Russia’s deepening economic dependence on China and the
so-called ‘no limits friendship’ can definitely threaten the American Unipolarity.
As an opening move, at the first round of direct talks with
Russia at Riyadh, among the four key points- Trump administration included the
possibility of geopolitical and economic cooperation. By trying to swing Russia
in its favour, Trump has exploited a chink in the Sino-Russo alignment and
boosted the prospect of peace process.
Trump’s recalibration and Russian rapproachement is driven
by a level-headed assessment of the impending geopolitical configurations and
changing world order. More importantly, it eventually takes into account
Beijing’s plans to invade Taiwan when Russia can no longer be the deterrence.
Pursuant to US geopolitical ambitions, Trump is attempting
to make a calibrated reset factoring China’s ‘peaceful rise’. The power centres
have slowly moved East and Trump turning in to Moscow signals the onset of a
new geostrategic churn that is bound to dominate in the years to come. It is an
attempt to paralyse the stinging tentacles of a rising hegemon in the East.
Zelenskyy’s open spat with Trump has been music to Russia.
This entire diplomatic fiasco, other than weakening NATO, has exposed the European
inability to defend itself. Clearly, the aspersions of isolationism cast on the
US is a futile exercise. It reeks of Europe’s short-sightedness and
exceptionalism. Europe must now become atmanirbhar to handle implicit and
explicit territorial threats instead of piggybacking on the US to safeguard its
interests.
Europe’s concern for Ukraine is driven by its security
interests and not by its commitment for a rules-based order. Ukraine is
Europe’s backyard. Russian aggression is an immediate threat to Europe. The
Indo-Pacific arena is highly critical for American security. Trump’s reset is
inexorably driven by an objective to safeguard its interests in the Pacific
region and beyond. This move also signals Trump administration’s keenness to
shed the global policeman tag.
Trump’s defiance, besides weakening the transatlantic alliance, attested to a glaringly contrasting NATO stance. The imminent security schism between the US and Europe appears to be the new foreign policy reality of Trump 2.0, which is bound to reshape the global security architecture.
No comments:
Post a Comment