We aren't protecting peace and democracy in Europe anymore.
Now we are splitting Ukraine and sharing it with Russia. Russia's share is ownership of the current territory of eastern and southern Ukraine. The U.S. share is a royalty interest in the minerals extracted from the part that remains.
Here is the full text of the U.S.-Ukraine agreement, published in The Kyiv Independent. The agreement so far is an agreement-to-agree, not an agreement. Details come later.
 |
| Agreement |
The agreement is hard to decipher, but I think it means this much:
***The two countries will create a fund, and Ukraine will contribute 50% of the monetized income from the sale of any newly-developed mineral resources.
***The two countries won't encumber or dilute the fund, nor sell part of it to third parties.
***The fund links U.S. interests to Ukraine's survival and prosperity.
***Ukraine acknowledges the American expense in assisting Ukraine's defense against the Russian invasion. The U.S. recognizes Ukraine having voluntarily given up its nuclear weapons at the urging of the U.S.
I see three big takeaways from this agreement.
1. It is a reflection of the new American policy, the Trump Doctrine. It asserts the primacy of hard power and like-for-like transactions in foreign policy. Trump doesn't care about squishy, sentimental, rules-based agreements. Any nation's borders are negotiable, just like everything else in business and war. A nation's borders are whatever a country can defend at any given moment. Borders and territory reflect relative strength, not justice or history or treaties or lines on a map. Therefore, there is no shame or guilt in a country abruptly changing its policy as it adjusts to shifts in relative power of itself and others.
2. This isn't entirely bad for Ukraine; an opinion I recognize may surprise and disappoint some readers. I fully acknowledge that the new Trump doctrine is amoral, cynical, and that it is playing with dynamite. The Trump doctrine of constantly shifting borders, partnerships, and trade agreements creates multiple points of unending conflict. It is a dangerous, possibly fatal mistake in the world's 80-year effort to avoid nuclear annihilation. But, given that Americans elected Trump and that the Trump Doctrine is in effect, then partnership with Ukraine, where the U.S. has a financial stake in Ukraine, is better for Ukraine than the alternative, in which Ukraine is a black hole of endless war and expense. Trump would readily abandon a bad "investment," one with ongoing costs and liabilities. But now the cost of Ukraine's defense is different. Our Ukraine "investment" now has gained an upside for America businesses.3. The sudden shift in American policy was a wake-up call for Europe. Europe has the potential to act like a great power. Europe can be a commercial and military peer to China and the U.S. Inertia in the Atlantic alliance, with America as senior partner, permitted Europe to be a perennial dependent. We may regret this change in status, and so might Europe. Europe may fall back into rivalries and war. That is their history. The U.S. will miss the European alliance. The U.S.is a more formidable rival to China when in close trade and military partnership with Europe. The old Atlantic partnership was out of date and better reflected the realities of the 1950s and 1960s than the realities of today. It was always a risk for Europe that a Trump-like American leader would come along. He came.
I think the chances of a nuclear war in the next decades are much, much higher now than they were a year ago. The realpolitik goal for a dozen or more countries in a you-are-on-your-own world is to get nuclear capability and bioweapons. Each needs that ace in the hole. And if a neighbor or rival might get those weapons, then any one country must get them, and get them first, and then use them first, upon plausible threat of attack by another.
Americans voted for this, whether they knew it or not. It is 1914 all over again.
[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.comSubscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]
6 comments:
Taiwan can be a very dangerous flashpoint. We need their chips but would we defend it against China? Would a war escalate over fighting about Taiwan? A protracted stalemate of fighting without nuclear weapons could then slip into strategic nuclear weapons. Just little bombs.
Switzerland has its population maintaining bomb shelters with guns, provisions for a year. They get inspected yearly by their functioning government. Maybe the human race will survive.
“Americans voted for this…” and for the cabinet of oligarchs, the mass layoffs, the seizure of our personal information by Muskovites, the demolition of congressionally established agencies and programs, etc. I suppose the usual suspects will somehow attribute this to “wokeness” rather than to those who fell under Trump’s spell and voted for the madman, but oh well.
This re-alignment with Russia was to be expected, based on Trump’s first term behavior. That Republicans remain so silent about it is just another symptom of the mental illness that has turned the GOP into a personality cult. And what a personality it is, with all the appeal of Jabba the Hut. There’s just no accounting for taste.
ex·tor·tion
/ikˈstôrSH(ə)n,ekˈstôrSH(ə)n/
noun
the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
Welcome to the Thugocracy. I think my grandparents would be very distressed.
"The president's policies are incredibly popular," says Danielle Alvarez. But most of the people in the U.S. who voted, didn't vote for Trump--he didn't even get 50%. How do those people feel now, and does it matter?
Trump and Vance made a childishly confrontational reality-show hash of the meeting with Zelensky, but I'm likely jumping ahead of tomorrow's post here. Just try to imagine them hot-boxing Putin in front of the world media like that.
Post a Comment