Trump’s Approach vs. biden’s Strategy

Donald Trump has consistently maintained that the war in Ukraine woudl not have occurred under his presidency. His priorities, even back in 2020, where different, suggesting he would have sought a preventive accommodation with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Biden administration, though, adopted a strategy centered on bolstering Ukraine’s resistance to weaken Moscow and diminish it’s long-term threat.

The motivations behind the Biden administration’s approach extend beyond ensuring European safety. Some analysts suggest that Europe is being utilized to support the U.S. strategy of neutralizing a threat that, combined with China, could challenge American hegemony. This perspective underscores the broader geopolitical implications of the conflict.

Economic Implications and Shifting Alliances

The biden administration’s policies have had notable economic consequences, especially for Europe. By replacing Russian energy supplies, the U.S. has together weakened Europe economically, forcing it to bear much higher energy costs. While there was initial consideration of a regime change in Moscow, this proved to be an unrealistic aspiration.

The protracted conflict has had a complex impact on Russia, both economically and politically.Though, it has also driven Russia closer to China, solidifying an anti-American alliance. This outcome has created a challenging situation with no clear exit strategy.

Zelensky’s Dilemma and Shifting Sands

Trump’s alternative approach prioritizes fostering positive relations with Russia while focusing on china. Consequently, a Ukrainian President Zelensky who refuses to concede has become an obstacle. Zelensky’s realization that the political landscape has shifted came perhaps too late, especially after a notable clash in Washington. He is now rapidly adjusting his course, recognizing that Europe, without U.S. support, is unable to provide substantial guarantees.

Ultimately, the fate of the war rests in the hands of Moscow and washington. This realization is a sobering one, as the Ukrainian population bears the brunt of a conflict orchestrated and managed by external powers.

The Impossibility of “Total Victory” and NATO’s Role

Despite European and Ukrainian rhetoric advocating for “war until the final victory,” the prospect of Ukraine pushing the Russians back to pre-2013 borders was always unrealistic.The only scenario in which Russia could be defeated would involve direct NATO intervention, a move that would risk triggering World War III and the potential use of nuclear weapons.President Biden himself has been unwilling to take such a risk.

Realistic assessments have consistently pointed to Russia’s eventual victory,given the resources and resolve Putin is willing to commit. zelensky has been acutely aware of this situation, repeatedly attempting to involve NATO. This led to a confrontation on february 28, during which Trump accused him of playing with the third world war.

playing with the third world war

Europe’s Inconsistency and Lack of Unity

Europe’s response to the conflict has been marked by inconsistency and disunity. Blindly following the Biden administration’s policies, even to its own detriment, Europe has failed to recognise that its interests do not always align with those of the United States. Despite this, Europe continues to unrealistically fantasize about a “total victory” for Ukraine, advocating for continued fighting.

The call for increased military spending following the announced American disengagement has further highlighted the inadequacy of European leaders. Their inability to accurately assess the situation is evident in conflicting peace plans announced by some and denied by others. French President Macron and British Prime Minister starmer are vying for continental leadership, making contradictory proclamations that are ultimately undermined by Zelensky’s preference to seek reconciliation with Trump.

Macron’s Ambitions and Credibility

With his recent address to the French nation, Macron positioned himself as the foremost defender of Europe against potential Russian aggression. While he may have hoped to secure a place in history, it is indeed more likely that he will be remembered as a European figure whose credibility is waning within his own country.

Beyond Rhetoric: National Interests and Realpolitik

The simplistic division of the world into good and bad, with Western democracies fighting against authoritarianism and Russia championing conventional values, serves primarily as propaganda. These narratives are used to rally public opinion and create divisions, but they do not represent the true drivers of the conflict.

Western democracies have historically formed alliances with dictatorships when it suits their interests, as exemplified by the relationship with Saudi Arabia. Similarly, Putin’s claim to defend Christian values does not prevent him from targeting Orthodox Christians in Ukraine.

The Pursuit of National Interests and the Path to Peace

Ultimately, every country, especially the major powers, acts in accordance with its national interests, whether political, economic, or ideological. These interests are defended at all costs and against all adversaries. Understanding and addressing these interests is crucial for achieving peace.

Peace, as conceived by humans, requires the harmonization of these competing interests, as demonstrated in Western Europe after World War II. The “right peace” is not necessarily a return to a presumed original order,but rather the moast achievable peace given the existing circumstances. Every state is the product of numerous border changes throughout history, and a lasting resolution must acknowledge this reality.