What will Trump give up to Putin?

Among the concessions that Donald Trump agrees to make is a declaration that Ukraine and Georgia will never become NATO members, and that Putin can retain control of the large territories he has occupied in Ukraine, including Crimea and the Donbas region.

It is still unclear why Trump's entourage believes that the Russian leader will agree to these terms, which would effectively mean the United States' capitulation to Russia. After all, it is hard to forget that just before Russia's attack on Ukraine, the Russian Foreign Ministry offered exactly these conditions to NATO member states, so that they would clearly declare that neither Ukraine nor Georgia would be members of the North Atlantic Alliance, like any other former Soviet republic.

At that time, Russia was not going to give up control over the territories of Crimea and Donbas. Moreover, it was preparing to recognize the so-called independence of the Kremlin's invented Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics.

“Trump's entourage continues to say that these concessions will be the only ones the American leader will agree to if he returns to the White House. However, this does not mean that the United States cannot continue arming Ukraine.”

However, another thing is completely unclear: why would Russian leader Vladimir Putin agree to such terms from Donald Trump? After all, the fact that the United States is ready to make significant concessions to Russia can only encourage the Russian president to continue the war against Ukraine in order to gain control over even more territories of the neighboring state, which, ideally for himself, Vladimir Putin would like to eliminate and annex almost all of it to Russia.

However, these consultations with the Kremlin once again emphasize the unrealistic picture of the world in which Donald Trump and his inner circle continue to live. In this scenario, however, the primary concern isn't just Trump's reluctance to actively support Ukraine against Putin's aggression. The most dangerous aspect is Donald Trump's apparent intention, if not to leave the North Atlantic Alliance, then at least to reformat it in a way that reduces America's responsibilities. For example, Donald Trump's team suggests that the main responsibility for ensuring a normal defense situation in Europe should be transferred to European countries, and the United States is ready to keep the nuclear umbrella over Europe, but to intervene in the situation only in the event of a serious crisis.

The so-called two-tiered approach to NATO is also proposed. This would mean the United States might not guarantee security and protection to countries that do not spend enough money on defense. Donald Trump's advisors even suggest that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty does not imply mandatory assistance to a country in case of an attack on it.

However, such a revision of Article 5 actually means dismantling the NATO mechanism as a defense alliance and significantly reducing the role of the United States in the world.

Why do Donald Trump's advisors propose this? What does the former American president, who is becoming a real danger to the world in his foreign policy calculations, like about this crazy plan?

Washington believes that the main direction in securing the future of the United States is not European, but Pacific, and that the main danger to the United States is related to the role of China, not Russia, which is not the main danger to the United States. And reducing the presence of American troops in Europe, as well as the role in the defense of the European continent, may allow the United States to focus more effectively on the South Pacific, which, in principle, is still a very important part of the American security strategy, if we look at the number of defense alliances that the Joseph Biden administration is creating in this region.

However, if Donald Trump himself had read at least a few historical books in his life, he would be less interested in the advice of his advisors, who obviously have read the books but have not drawn any conclusions.

This was the prevailing view of the American elite in the late 1930s, when most American politicians believed that the United States should not be actively involved in European affairs and should focus on securing its future in other areas. This mindset ultimately led to Pearl Harbor and the subsequent active participation of the United States in the European war.

Now the situation is almost the same: the People's Republic of China and Russia are actively cooperating with each other in what they may call the dismantling of democratic institutions, reducing the role of the United States and other democratic states.

And if it turns out that Russia can impose its conditions on the American president and thus secure the future in terms of realizing its ambitions, even without the economic potential that the People's Republic of China has, then China will certainly be encouraged to take more active steps to promote its own ambitions in the Pacific region and reduce the role of the United States, which may obviously not please Donald Trump.

And as a result, the situation with Pearl Harbor may repeat itself, only the role of the then-militaristic Japan will be played by the People's Republic of China, and Russia will play the role of the former Nazi Reich. In principle, it can still cope with this role quite well.

Thus, the desire of the United States to reduce its role in Europe, as the experience of the period between the First and Second World Wars shows, has always led to serious challenges for the United States. We can say with absolute certainty that Donald Trump and his team are leading the United States to a real Great War in the Pacific with their ridiculous plans.

And it is worth noting that this war may actually become World War III for Donald Trump and for Americans. And it turns out that this is exactly what the citizens of the United States of America will vote for, for World War III, when they cast their votes for Donald Trump in November of this year.

Source

About the author. Vitaly Portnikov, journalist, winner of the Shevchenko National Prize of Ukraine.

The editors don't always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.