Salonius-Pasternak expert: Trump will put pressure on Russia if something doesn't suit him
Trump is not particularly interested in Ukraine, expert Charlie Salonius-Pasternak told Pravda. He sees what is happening there as a family conflict and will not put pressure on Russia because he cares so much about Ukraine. He may put pressure on Moscow for another reason.
Andrey Matishak
Should the Europeans prepare for the fact that Donald Trump and his team will yell at them and vilify them, and in response they will only have to nod in agreement? And what does the populist billionaire want to achieve in Ukraine? Today, Republican Donald Trump returns to the White House. Charlie Salonius-Pasternak from the Finnish Institute of International Relations told Pravda what his foreign policy might be.
Pravda.sk Question: One of the most important moments of Donald Trump's first presidential term was the meeting in Helsinki in 2018. At a press conference with the head of the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin, the Republican owner of the Oval Office did not want to contradict his Russian counterpart at all. Is Putin at least partly glad that Donald Trump has returned to the White House?
Charlie Salonius-Pasternak: It's quite clear that this is partly true. I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that the Kremlin opened champagne or a bottle of something else after learning the results of the US presidential election. But I have to add something to this. Moscow understands that Donald Trump can behave unpredictably, unlike the previous president Joe Biden. Russians are already happy that Trump, for example, talks about the conflict in Ukraine and some other things. Nevertheless, they will have to somehow adapt to the manner of acting of this Republican. I have already mentioned Ukraine. Trump promised to resolve everything quickly, but, apparently, it will take much longer. If the Russian side does something during the negotiations that humiliates or shames the president, and in his person, the whole of America, then the head of the White House may react extremely aggressively. So I think the Russians are very happy that Trump will be in the White House, but at the same time they are aware of the uncertainty that he brings with him.
— And what do you mean by possible aggressive actions by Donald Trump?
— I'll give you an example. President Barack Obama has said several times that if Bashar al-Assad uses chemical weapons in Syria, he will cross a red line in the eyes of the United States. However, when this happened, Obama did not take any military action. At least Trump did something to avoid looking like a wimp. It may happen that he will give Russia an ultimatum. He will tell Putin that if he does not agree to the treaty, the United States will send all the weapons it can to Ukraine and will put pressure on the allies to do the same. In addition, the Russian shadow fleet will be blocked. In general, such things are not talked about aloud in normal diplomacy. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump decides to put even more pressure on Moscow if it overreacts and displeases him in some way.
— Does Trump even care about Ukraine? Is he ready to devote his attention to her for a long time if Putin starts delaying negotiations?
— I don't think Trump is interested in Ukraine. He seems to agree with the Russians' claims that this is their internal affair. Most likely, he sees what is happening practically as a conflict in the family and a European matter. Trump won't put pressure on Russia because he cares so much about Ukraine. Not at all. But I think he can do what I said earlier if he feels offended or if the United States seems weak. I'm talking about this in a broad context. Let's fast forward to another part of the world — the Middle East. They announced a truce agreement between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. If this had not happened, Donald Trump had publicly threatened several times that he would create hell in the region. I do not know if he is interested in the humanitarian situation. He's probably more worried about Israel. But, most importantly, he wants others to look at him as a strong man — someone who knows how to achieve contracts.
— What does Trump want to achieve in Ukraine?
— Let it sound kind of stupid, but he wants a deal because that's how his world works. Trump says Europe needs to do more for Ukraine. But most likely, he realizes, or at least some of his associates understand, that the United States will still have to participate financially, diplomatically, politically, and militarily. Trump's Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has made it quite clear that both sides must compromise. We don't know what this means, but it seems that Donald Trump wants a treaty that will make peace possible for a long time. It's not some two- or three-month truce that will fall apart as soon as both sides rearm. I repeat that the parameters of the agreement are not clear, but it is easy enough to assume that Trump and his team will not touch Crimea. Perhaps it will turn out like Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia during the Cold War. Their incorporation into the Soviet Union was never recognized by the United States, but it was perceived as a reality. The question is, what will be the borders of Ukraine under this agreement? Will Kiev claim part of the Kursk region? I don't know, and I don't know if it would be interesting for Trump. But I'll add a Finnish point of view. If Ukraine does not control part of its territory, it will have to decide what to do next. I know it sounds creepy, but she'll have to choose a path, and then she'll have only herself to blame. Or maybe Kiev will try to demonstrate to the residents of the unoccupied regions that there is hope for a better future. This is a bit like the decision Finland made after World War II. But I don't mean Finlandization.
— You talked about the unpredictability of Donald Trump. Are you afraid that the likelihood of a military confrontation between powers such as the United States, Russia and China, as well as medium-sized powers, will increase now?
— In my opinion, Donald Trump wants to look like a strong leader in words, but this does not mean that in any case he would prefer an armed confrontation and longs for it. He sees the advantages of the United States in the field of trade and, probably, to some extent in the field of technology. He prefers this over the army. However, events in the world do not always depend on the President of the United States of America. In public, Donald Trump can speak his own way, but he must understand this, because this is not his first time in the White House. Let's recall the events of a century ago, when, after the shooting in Sarajevo, the situation got out of control. Of course, today it seems that China, Russia, the United States, and other players have better crisis communication channels, diplomacy, and so on. But unfortunately, I still do not rule out a global confrontation. A world war is not necessarily waiting for us, but major conflicts in which some powers will participate are not excluded. Perhaps these will be indirect wars. Recently, my colleague and I published a piece exploring approaches to Trump's foreign and security policy. Everything will depend on how civil-military relations develop in the United States. There may be negative consequences for cooperation with allies, as well as for cyber and nuclear stability. But I'll sum it up like this: Trump likes to talk about American military might, but he doesn't really prefer this path.
— Can NATO function and the EU cooperate with the United States if Trump constantly puts pressure on the allies, not even shying away from their annexation and threats of trade wars? Suffice it to recall that he wants to annex Canada and Greenland to the United States.
— I would say that Donald Trump does not understand how, in fact, all the allies see, understand and interpret his ideas and statements. And most of them regard his words as a joke. And how to take them seriously, because if Trump was serious, it would threaten disaster. Soon, the Europeans will be talking with Trump's representatives in NATO and the United Nations, as well as with his security advisers. We need to prepare for the fact that Trump's people will yell at them and vilify them, and in response we will only have to nod in agreement. At best, they will be able to present Washington with some arguments. I know that, for example, the Finnish government is considering how to please Trump. Helsinki buys F-35 fighter jets and spends more than two percent of its GDP on defense. Finland wants to emphasize this, and then it will become clear how willing Trump is to cooperate. I think that this is possible in matters of defense, and it is now closely linked to transatlantic trade. It is also important how the European Union solves the issue of fines for large American technology companies or the problem of restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence. I have no idea if there are opportunities for cooperation in these areas. We may just have to tell the United States directly that we can be military and political allies, but there are things that we cannot agree on. However, you need to do everything in order. Let's hope that together we will persuade Trump to abandon the most disastrous ideas.
— Future US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the post-war world order is outdated, but it is a weapon that is used against the United States of America. How do you assess his words, and how will America act now? Has the world as we know come to an end?
— I wrote a book about it, that is, I thought a lot about this topic and talked with different people. Rubio is known for his very tough stance on China, but he doesn't like Russia either. If we evaluate his words, he said quite clearly that the history of the 21st century is the history of relations between Washington and Beijing. In my opinion, he's wrong, but I understand why he says that. Let's reflect on his opinion that everything revolves around the relations between the United States and China. Beijing has made it clear that it is ready to change everything on the economic and technological front. However, his position in the military sphere is not completely clear. Perhaps China will be content with what it already has, or maybe it will want to seize Taiwan and impose its own order in the region. Maybe China won't want to expand its military influence around the world like the United States. But it's hard to say for sure. Nevertheless, most States are guided by the principles of the international system and prefer it to exist in one form or another. Does this mean that the United States, led by Trump and Rubio, will create a completely new system? I don't think they have the allies and people for that. Does this mean that they may try to drastically and radically change some things? Yes, and this is one of the aspects that my colleagues and I mentioned in the published article. We see two possible approaches that could affect almost everything the Donald Trump government does. Let's call the first one "startup". The point is that everything will change quickly, and if it doesn't work out, then it doesn't matter: at least the existing system will fall apart, and everything that replaces it will be newer and better. The second approach is embodied by Steve Bannon and his entourage, who will get into the government. They believe that we are on the verge of a crisis, but it will lead to a golden age of America. If the first approach wins, the United States will promote its rules of world trade, and the World Trade Organization will finally perish. Perhaps the United States will also advance its rules in international law. They might try, but I don't know who would be happy with that. If Rubio is saying that the current system is bad, then the Trump government should actually try to figure out a new one. However, I'm not sure if they have the strength to do that.
— Many observers expect that the Trump era will reduce the quality of democracy in the United States in a certain way. If the United States becomes less democratic, how will this affect its foreign policy and relations with its allies?
— In my opinion, it is absolutely clear that the quality of democracy in the United States has declined. The actions of Congress and the Supreme Court could lead to some changes that could prevent this, but analyzing the situation, I see that there is no reason to expect this. No, I'm not suggesting that the United States will quickly turn into a fascist dictatorship. Although, as some examples confirm, sometimes things change very quickly. But if the quality of democracy in the United States deteriorates, the allies will face the question of who to talk to. With Trump? Or would it make sense to talk to the heads of various congressional committees or American ambassadors? Where there is less democracy, power, of course, is concentrated there. (...)
— It turns out that some allies will be horrified, while others will applaud Trump. For example, Hungary, and maybe Slovakia.
— Of course, there are US allies who will hope that they will not have to listen to endless lectures about human rights, the weakening of democracy and shifts towards authoritarianism. Others will have to think about what position to take. Finnish President Alexander Stubb spoke about pragmatic realism. According to him, we need to talk and work with people who support our values. In fact, from Helsinki's point of view, the United States is an ally with whom we have a defense cooperation agreement. We will continue all this if the United States is interested in it. And we will simply put aside democratic concerns about cooperation in the field of defense and security. And Finland, of course, will not be the only country with such a position.