Whether or not the Islamic Republic of Iran politically implodes in the aftermath of the American-Israeli aerial onslaught, and regardless of whether there is an uneasy truce or phoney war between the participants, a far greater issue confronts the Continent of Europe – namely what will become of Putin’s ongoing war against a sovereign UN member state, Ukraine.
Far from ending that war – which has caused far greater casualties than the recent three years’ fighting in the Middle East within 24 hours – as Trump boasted he would to American voters this time last year, Putin is raising the military stakes in an unabated attempt to subjugate Ukraine.
What is Trump doing to stop Putin’s war? Nothing, it seems. But why? Any display of substantial US military assistance for Ukraine could make further prosecution of Putin’s invasion futile. It would not involve American boots on the ground in Ukraine. It would not risk nuclear warfare. If Putin sensed that the US was serious in preventing a win for Russia in Ukraine, a ceasefire followed by a peace conference would ensue.
But Trump won’t even countenance further sanctions against Russia. He astonished his so-called allies by calling for Russia’s readmission to the G7 summits. He regularly suggests that Ukraine somehow started the war with Russia. He called President Zelenskiy a dictator and insulted him grossly at an ambush in the Oval Office – the political pigsty where idiotic parodies of international diplomacy are staged. He has hardly more than murmured against the Russian missile onslaught on Ukrainian cities.
What is his real strategy? Is it to collapse the Ukrainian state by weakening its resistance to Russia or to re-establish Ukraine as a Russian satellite? Is it to divide the mineral and oil assets of Ukraine with Russia, in line with the “deal” he imposed on Zelenskiy in a Corleone-style offer he couldn’t refuse? Is the “dictator” Zelenskiy now to be the object of US-backed regime change as part of a capitulation to Russia?
Or is there some different hidden policy agenda in the White House? I used to be sceptical about claims that Putin had access to kompromat on Trump that explained his grovelling relationship with the Kremlin. But if such kompromat is not the explanation, it is hard to see why the White House is behaving as it does towards Ukraine.
It was fascinating to read the Kremlin’s response to the US bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities. The Russians condemned it as the violation of international law and the UN charter against the territory of a sovereign state member of the United Nations. As the invader of Ukraine, Moscow’s verbal posturing was the worst form of sanctimonious, hypocritical humbug. It was the least – and the most – it could do for Iran, the supplier of much of the components for its drone weaponry used in Ukraine.
Now we are told that the US is completely committed to Nato. The US permanent representative, Matthew Whittaker, speaking at the alliance’s conference in The Hague stated that the US “isn’t going anywhere” and is going to be a “reliable ally” for its Nato treaty members. The 5 per cent target for defence spending by Nato members seems to have rekindled Washington’s affection for the alliance.
It isn’t necessary for Ukraine to join Nato or indeed the EU in order for the US to stand by the security pledge it gave Ukraine in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. This pledge was in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nuclear arsenal that was located on its territory in USSR days. It may well be that the pre-1954 status of the Crimea as part of Russia will ultimately be reinstated as part of a peace deal.
But a successful Russian subjugation of Ukraine and a follow-on subjugation of Moldova and Georgia would bring the Nato alliance into a directly confrontational physical and geographical relationship with Russian despotism from the Caucasus to the Barents Sea.
Ukraine must have its previous security guarantees reinstated as part of any peace deal. It must have the means to defend itself. It must have the right to choose at least the trading relationship with the EU that EEA members now enjoy, if it is not to become a fully fledged EU member.
It is now suggested that Trump may plan to meet Zelenskiy again. If so, that meeting must be based on mutual respect and truth – unlike the shameful Oval Office ambush. The White House must understand the concerns of its allies. It must understand that Nato is not simply transactional. The alliance is about a commitment to democratic values.
The preamble to the 1949 Nato treaty stated that the alliance was founded on preservation and defence of the “principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law”.
If the White House capitulates to Putin on Ukraine, it will grossly and perhaps fatally betray those principles.