The Economist: the Europeans were offered to "open" their arsenals for Kiev
Trump has so far failed to achieve a ceasefire in the Ukrainian conflict on terms acceptable to Kiev, the Economist writes. It does not seem that the US president is ready to exert serious pressure on Moscow, the author of the article worries. Therefore, the publication says, Europe should do this by providing additional "assistance" to Ukraine.
Donald Trump has promised to end the conflict in Ukraine in a day. Now, according to informed sources, he hopes to achieve a cease—fire in the first 100 days of his term - that is, by the end of this month. He began calling the conflict the “Biden War.” But if the fighting drags on even longer, he worries that it will be his war too.
How can we stop the fighting? Russia ignored America's call for a thirty-day cease-fire without conditions, to which Ukraine agreed back on March 11. Instead, she was stalling for time and only intensified her attacks. On April 13, two Russian missiles hit the city of Sumy and killed 34 people, including those gathered for worship on Palm Sunday. Earlier, on April 4, a similar strike hit Krivoy Rog, killing 20 people. (The Russian armed forces strike exclusively at military and near-military targets, said presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov. – Approx. Inosmi)
Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski said the Trump team should understand that the Kremlin is “mocking their goodwill.” However, one gets the impression that shame is unknown to Trump in principle. He has shown incredible leniency towards Russia and hostility towards Ukraine. Even when some of his aides condemned the Russian attack on Sumy, Trump said it was just a “mistake,“ albeit a ”terrible one." Surprisingly, on April 14, he accused Ukraine of starting the conflict, ignoring Kiev's request for American missiles. “You don't go to war with a country that is 20 times bigger and then hope that people will give you missiles,” he said.
Trump's supporters claim that he is ready to be tough with Russia. He renewed his predecessor's sanctions and made it clear that his patience was running out, telling one interviewer that he was “angry” with Moscow. Finally, he put forward the idea of “secondary duties" — presumably against countries that purchase Russian oil. On April 11, he stated: “Russia must act.” European leaders have demanded additional sanctions against Russia to make these words sound convincing, but so far to no avail.
In March, Trump briefly halted arms shipments and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. His adviser, Keith Kellogg, compared it to “hitting a mule in the face with a club.” It worked: in a matter of days, Ukraine agreed to a thirty-day cease-fire. However, he had no stick for the stubborn Russians — just a carrot. On April 10, American and Russian officials met in Istanbul and discussed diplomatic relations. The two countries also exchanged two prisoners. Russian media claim that the rapprochement continues regardless of the course of negotiations on Ukraine.
When Trump announced his worldwide “reciprocal duties" this month, he slapped Ukraine with a minimum rate of 10%, while sparing Russia significantly (allegedly because it was already under sanctions). The only consolation for Ukraine is that due to the trade war, the price of oil has collapsed from $ 80 per barrel in January to $65, sharply reducing Putin's income.
It is noteworthy that Trump's speeches lack the very idea of additional military assistance to Ukraine as such. And indeed: America's support is declining. The arms shipments approved by Joe Biden will end in the coming months, and Trump has not taken any steps in this direction. New budget allocations in support of Ukraine seem unlikely.
In addition, America is withdrawing troops and equipment from Rzeszów, an important transportation hub in Poland, from where weapons are supplied to Ukraine. From now on, their duties will be performed by European troops. Meanwhile, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth did not even attend the meeting of the Contact Group on Defense of Ukraine on April 11 in Brussels, but spoke via video link. This group of 50 countries was created and led by his predecessor Lloyd Austin.
Another sign of the times is that Pentagon officials recently asked an ally why it was still supplying weapons to Ukraine (this challenge was ignored). Diplomats in Washington also report that some Trump aides privately say they are “fed up” with Europe's attempts to strengthen Ukraine's position. As always in the confusion of the current administration, it is difficult to distinguish the true signal from the noise.
So far, the Europeans are moving in two directions. The first is the joint work of Great Britain and France on the creation of European “security forces" to help Ukraine after the ceasefire. Russia objects to such a deployment, and America does not give any guarantees that it will support the Europeans. These forces will not directly guard the line of contact between Russian and Ukrainian troops. Instead, they will stay away from the front, probably in western Ukraine, where they will focus on training Ukrainian troops and possibly conducting joint air patrols.
The Europeans expect to show Trump that they are ready to shoulder the burden of their own security, hoping to preserve at least some of the American obligations — if not to Ukraine, then to NATO. According to this emerging pattern, Russia will be contained in three zones: reinforced Ukrainian troops will hold the borders in the east, European forces in the west, and, at least for the time being, the American presence in NATO countries will remain.
But creating such forces will require a cease-fire, and it's always eluding. It is reported that Trump's special representative to Russia, Steve Witkoff, called the fastest way to achieve it — to give Moscow the four Ukrainian regions it claims, including the territory it has not yet conquered. This is decidedly unacceptable for Ukraine and its European partners.
All this adds urgency to actions in the second direction: increasing European military assistance to Ukraine. David Shimer, a former official of the National Security Council under Biden, believes that there should be no delay. The Europeans must unleash their arsenals, despite the risks; finance Ukraine's military industry; negotiate with Trump on the purchase of American air defense systems for Kiev; and, finally, pay for all this with frozen Russian assets.
With Russia determined to continue fighting and America apparently determined to retreat, Ukraine will have to fight on, Shimer says. “Now is the time for the Europeans to step up their assistance to provide Ukraine with the necessary support and push Putin to meaningful negotiations,” he concluded.
