In geopolitics, there are a number of immutable truths.
First and foremost, all nations act in their own best interests. We can all point to assorted examples but the United States exercising its foreign policy can be a brutal display of self-interest. This is magnified because the USA is (currently) the dominant force on the planet from almost every angle you care to name. Therefore, its actions almost always have a ripple effect across most other nations.
Secondly, nations will sometimes act as a collective (EU; ASEAN; AUKUS; NATO; BRICS+ etc.) for assorted reasons and every now and then, nations will be substantially unified (UN). But the overriding consideration is always: what’s in it for us or, how can we leverage this to our benefit?
Another immutable truth is that at a macro level, nations don’t take a short-term view. Nations will view their progress, or the protection of their interests, years or decades in advance. In some cases, the progress or interest is seen as an indispensable, permanent national requirement and the nation will plan and manoeuvre accordingly. Even these early stages can take many years/decades.
For example, President Xi of China is convinced that the west is in decline and the east is in the ascension. A fundamental shift in empires is underway. In the broadest sense, he sees his role as ensuring that China will emerge as the dominant global financial and military power with the absorption of Taiwan back into China’s controlling orbit. Whether that absorption of Taiwan occurs in five, ten or fifty years is partially irrelevant; the absorption will occur, and the west will be unable to prevent it as China will be pre-eminent. Xi’s legacy, whether he is alive or dead by that time, will be as the revered father of a globally dominant, modern and re-united China.
China is a definitive example of long-term planning and laser focussed national self-interest. It must also be said that in many respects, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has all the hallmarks of a long planned, national interest engagement. It is well known that Russia believes the west will grow weary of supporting Ukraine long before Russian resolve will diminish.
Yet another immutable truth is that things are rarely as they seem. This truth is often obscured by the MSM who seem intent on feeding us the most simplistic, lowest-common-denominator biased drivel and rarely delve into the driving forces behind a nation’s decision making process. But a ‘wheels within wheels’ approach that borders on Machiavellian is often in play.
And finally, ‘follow the money’. Apparent altruism between nations, even when it appears to occur, only goes so far and money usually comes with conditions attached. Nations will use money to coerce, encourage, blackmail and bully another (usually smaller) nation to do its bidding in pursuit of the foregoing immutable truths.
Bearing those truths in mind, I was pondering Ukraine, Russia, NATO and the forthcoming Presidential elections in the United States. In particular, the implications if Donald Trump is elected.
In an interview on CNN, Trump said that if elected he would end the war between Russia and Ukraine “within 24 hours”. You can be certain that the comment struck fear into the heart of Ukraine President Zelensky. I imagine the citizens of Ukraine were also alarmed. On what terms would Trump end the war? What pressure would be brought to bear on Ukraine?
In considering Trump’s remarks (conditional on his being elected and following through), it appears that Trump will pull funding and military materiel support to force Ukraine to the negotiating table. If the stars align and the foregoing pre-conditions actually occur, I do not expect a sudden withdrawal of support but even the gradual strangulation of supply will achieve the same outcome.
Perhaps Trump is also relying on his (self-professed) ability as a ‘deal maker’ to limit Russian demands to Ukrainian territory or his (alleged) relationship with Russian President Putin. But whether the next US President is Trump or almost anybody else, Ukraine has a potentially serious future problem.
Trump has frequently remarked that he has no appetite for ‘foreign wars’ and whilst American soldiers are not losing their lives in Ukraine, the cost to America is measurable in dollars – and those dollars are mounting up at $US115+bn to date (of the ~$US210bn total). Trump’s view is that the money should be spent in America to improve the lives of Americans – and it appears that many of the Republican Presidential candidates have similar opinions.
Moreover, a significant portion (39%) of the overall American public seem to agree (up from 31% 6 months ago) that the conflict must be ended as soon as possible. Sure, not a majority but neither is it insignificant and perhaps more disturbing for Ukraine, the number is increasing.
Along party lines, the contrast is stark. Republicans are more likely now (50%) than when the war began (9%) to say the US is doing too much to support Ukraine. Republicans are also more likely today (49%) than in January 2023 (41%) to prefer ending the conflict quickly, even if it allows Russia to keep captured territory.
Democrats on the other hand have been the most supportive of US military support for Ukraine. They have overwhelmingly and consistently favoured a war in which Ukraine attempts to regain lost land. However, Democrat opinion has also shifted in the past six months from saying America could do more to saying it has done the right amount. In other words, the ‘blank cheque’ approach is nearing exhaustion.
So, the next American election could be fundamental to Ukraine’s future.
We must ask ourselves however, if America were to withdraw support for Ukraine, how would the other western nations react. I expect the response, notably by the UK, France, Germany and the Baltic states to be unpleasant. Having expended many billions of pounds, francs, deutschemarks and zloty whilst assuring their respective populations that this was a necessary cost, the withdrawal of American support for Ukraine will be a gross humiliation for those leaders. Not to mention a stupendous display (again) to Europeans of the changeable nature of American political will.
The recent NATO conference in Vilnius, Lithuania did not present Ukraine with the definitive pathway to NATO membership it was seeking (demanding). Several NATO leaders commented that “we will support Ukraine for as long as it takes” with one notable comment being “for ten years if necessary”. Uh huh, sure. The ebb and flow of geopolitics tells us that is absurd. Of course, the MSM lapped it up and dutifully regurgitated it for the masses to marvel at the resolve.
I imagine Zelensky is watching the American political scene like a hawk and praying that the American elections see Biden returned to power or at least, Biden’s military support for Ukraine is supplanted into whomever is the new President. If there is even a modest chance that Trump or someone else with similar views on support for Ukraine is likely to be elected, Zelensky knows he will need to act.
The west cannot be relied upon to provide open-ended and permanent support because we don’t do that. And if the Russia-Ukraine conflict devolves into a stalemate, the public and political support will gradually fade as the west, especially the US, are paying much of the bill but with no result. It appears that if the Republicans win the next election, the fold-back of support may well be accelerated which will force Zelensky into talks under intense pressure. Initiating negotiations when your primary backer is heading for the door is never a good start. Zelensky cannot be so naive to think the west’s current support is a bottomless well of largesse. He will need to find a way to the negotiating table, and sooner rather than later in my opinion, because the inevitable and immutable truths of geopolitics are lurking in the shadows.
Leave a Reply