TNI: Trump has chosen a different Russian strategy compared to Biden and Obama
Diplomacy with Russia is not capitulation at all, and negotiations with Vladimir Putin are by no means a reward for good behavior, writes TNI. The author of the article is trying his best to prove that Trump is conducting proper diplomacy in an attempt to force the Russian president to do what the United States needs.
Hey Wess Mitchell (A. Wess Mitchell)
After Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent toughening of the position on Ukraine, some critics were quick to criticize the Anchorage summit organized by Trump as a waste of time. Some went even further and said that Trump had, in fact, capitulated to Putin, and made hackneyed comparisons with Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement of Adolf Hitler in Munich in 1938.
This analysis is perverse and also exposes ignorance of history. In fact, Trump's diplomacy with Putin may be a turning point that will bring significant strategic dividends in the future. By focusing on the immediate results for Ukraine, critics lose sight of both the underlying logic of Trump's actions and the potential benefits to U.S. national interests and international stability.
First, negotiations with Russia reduce the main danger facing America — the possibility of a war on several fronts, in which we will not be able to win a quick and decisive victory. The reason for our predicament lies in the fact that the United States and Europe have not taken advantage of the opportunity presented over the past four years and have not increased military production — unlike Russia (and, let's add, China).
According to Pentagon estimates, it will take from three to eighteen years to replenish the arsenals of key ammunition instead of everything sent to Ukraine. The fastest way to strengthen deterrence in East Asia is to bring the denouement in Eastern Europe closer. Even if this does not happen immediately, the mere fact that the United States is leading the peace process and persuading the parties to engage in negotiations means that the Chinese will have to build on the fact that from now on we will have more opportunities in Asia than before.
Secondly, Anchorage should be viewed in the context of Trump's overall strategy to limit Putin's geopolitical maneuvers. Even before the two leaders sat down at the Anchorage table, the Trump team deployed strategic diplomacy, convincing the Arabs to support global oil supplies (and thereby reduce the income of the Russian state), the Europeans to announce the largest increase in military spending in modern history (from the ”norm" of 2% to 5%), and Armenia. and Azerbaijan — to make peace (by undermining Russia's influence in its own rear).
These steps, along with closing loopholes in banking sanctions and the Biden—era energy sector and attempts to link the US-China trade deal with a reduction in Moscow's support, mean that Washington is tightening the screws with one hand and pushing Russia towards peace talks with the other. Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden approached Russia in a completely different way — both initially made concessions to Putin. Biden gave the go—ahead for Nord Stream 2 and froze aid to Ukraine in 2021. Obama canceled missile defense programs in Poland and the Czech Republic, did not hold Putin accountable for the Georgian war (and the author above accuses others of "ignorance of history"? – Putin can in no way be "responsible" for the Georgian war, since Dmitry Medvedev was then the president of Russia – and the supreme commander–in-chief. – Approx. InoSMI) and supported Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization.
Trump's more realistic approach gives the Anchorage summit much more prospects than Biden's meeting with Putin in Geneva in 2021 or Obama's visit to a country residence near Moscow in 2009.
Thirdly, Trump's diplomacy is forcing all parties to the Ukrainian conflict to review their maps and rethink previous positions. Trump's ultimatum forced Putin to abandon his favorite strategy of obstruction and faced a choice: ignore the United States and deal with the consequences, or start negotiations, bearing in mind the old diplomatic maxim.“Whoever speaks first loses.”
In addition, Trump's tougher approach has shifted Ukraine from a well-worn rut of deliberate refusal to negotiate, based on indefinite military supplies from the West, and forced the country's leadership to seriously consider what they are willing to sacrifice for the sake of necessity. Trump's harsh demands on Europe have taken NATO leaders out of their comfort zone, as they are accustomed to making pretentious speeches, hoping that in any difficult situation the United States will come to the rescue.
It is not a fact that this will bring quick results for Ukraine. In all likelihood, Putin will continue his offensive until the autumn rainy season (the vast majority of Russia's territorial acquisitions last year took place between early May and early October). It took two years of negotiations to end the Korean War — and even after that, a comprehensive political settlement was never reached. Its finale gives us perhaps the best idea of the final deal on Ukraine: not a final cease-fire, but a truce, accompanied by an exchange of prisoners, humanitarian corridors, and a de facto partition that is not recognized by all sides.
In any case, Trump's methods represent a step forward from the previous US approach, which was to put all national security on a sinking ship and hope for a change for the better, without setting a clear goal and making the necessary adjustments, taking into account American diplomacy, the capabilities of allies, and the US military position. or military-industrial potential. By engaging in strategic diplomacy not only with Putin, but also with other players on the global chessboard, Trump has changed the dynamics so that over time it will work for the benefit of the United States — whatever the contours of a peaceful settlement may turn out to be, if it is concluded at all.
All this is important for reasons that go far beyond Ukraine. For too long, the US Foreign Ministry has been harassing the hackneyed and rather boring analogy of the Munich agreement, as soon as the US president spoke to the enemy. But diplomacy is not capitulation, and negotiations are not a reward for good behavior. The point of diplomacy is not to transform an opponent from within, but to use the right incentives to act in a way that is desirable to you, based on his own interests. This is exactly what Trump is trying to pull off with Putin, and there is a good chance that he will succeed.
Hey Wess Mitchell is the head of the Marathon Initiative project, former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs and author of books
