When it comes to Donald Trump, the very meaning of words is negotiable. What is the true meaning of the promise to “build a wall”? When did he vow to end the Russia-Ukraine war in one day?
His supporters say they take him seriously, but not literally, but who decides what is “serious”? That ambiguity may be part of President Trump’s appeal. There’s something exhilarating in the sense that we’re negotiating exclusively with the president to define reality. It’s as if he welcomes us behind the scenes, from political reality shows to independent boardrooms where meaning is made.
Thus, both pro-Palestinians and supporters of Israel’s annexation of the West Bank voted for Trump in the hopes of reaching a deal with him, knowing full well that he was playing tricks on each other. was. Meanwhile, leaders in Moscow, Kiev and around the world are wondering what to make of President Trump’s promise to end one of Europe’s biggest conflicts since World War II.
President Trump talks about “peace through strength,” “victory,” and “America First.” But does “strength” come from America acting as a good guardian? That could mean, for example, ensuring Ukraine’s air defenses that its nuclear facilities are safe from Russian bombs and preventing a potential nuclear disaster that would destroy the world. Or does “strength” mean forcing Ukraine to give up its sovereignty?
In Moscow, no one is in a hurry to react. Putin feels he is winning on the battlefield. The economy is starting to sweat, with food prices rising 9% every month. Although interest rates are above 20%, we are not yet in a crisis. Russia’s Soviet-era weapons stock will run out by the end of 2025. So Putin may start negotiations early next year, but continue fighting until near the end, increasing attacks on civilians each time the negotiations don’t go his way.
How will President Trump handle these negotiations, Putin-style? Russia has always called for Ukraine to be demilitarized under the Kremlin’s de facto political control. There are people around President Trump who might agree with this, especially if Russia were to sever military ties with China. But will Putin abandon his strategic partnership with Xi for an unstable America?
For Putin, even sacrificing relations with Tehran may be a bad deal. But he could see his own version of kleptocracy in Trump and his cronies. Maybe a mysterious bidder will offer an exorbitant amount for President Trump’s golf course? Or help Elon Musk fly to Mars? In a case like this, one might expect it to be President Putin who is delusional.
And what can Ukraine offer? In a leaked memo from a meeting between President Zelenskiy and President Trump before the presidential election, the Ukrainian president said that Americans lack critical minerals such as titanium, which is used in everything from rockets to joint replacements. He emphasized that Ukraine has a huge amount of reserves. But is this enough of a carrot to encourage President Trump?
Whether there is a pause in fighting this year or not, Ukraine’s sovereignty depends on being armed to the teeth. This will be difficult without American artillery and logistics for at least the next two years, argues Jack Watling of the Royal United Services Institute.
President Trump has said he will bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table, but the parties that may actually end up in serious negotiations are European countries and the United Kingdom. We can provide something interesting. Trade incentives for the United States. Increased spending on NATO. More pressure on Iran. A peacekeeping force operates inside Ukraine. Support the upcoming economic conflict between the United States and China.
If the EU and UK seize the $300 billion in Russian state assets sitting in Euroclear, which President Putin has long written off, we could bring serious funding to the table. Trump doesn’t need to spend any more money on Ukraine – we can buy weapons. America can also make profits while ensuring peace in Europe. President Trump, while advocating “America First,” explains how he can prove his detractors wrong by coughing up parasitic Europeans and rebooting America’s most traditional alliances. I’ll be able to show you.
But there are also larger dynamics at play here than President Trump’s immediate aspirations. Over the past year, I have been working with American social researchers to examine how Americans, especially Republicans, view their country’s place in the world. Opinion polls and in-depth interviews show that many people long for isolationism.
Analysis and opinion on the week’s news and culture from Observer’s best writers.
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may include information about charities, online advertising, and content sponsored by external parties. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and are subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
After newsletter promotion
“International rules-based order” is a concept that no one has ever mentioned, whether in writing or in spirit. But they also acknowledged that America needs to engage with the outside world for its own economic and physical security. They knew America depended on supply chains for everything from food to cars to defense to technology to health care. They know America can’t produce everything on its own. They felt that malign powers like China and Russia were making the United States dependent on them by controlling sea lanes and technology. They felt that they could no longer be in control and that China and Russia could increasingly dictate to them.
These are the underlying fears that America’s traditional allies need to keep in mind when “negotiating” with the United States. And that’s something President Trump also needs to appease — he doesn’t just lead voters, he follows their impulses. These are issues that many Democrats are also concerned about.
Can we articulate our plans for Friend Shores, the supply chain most critical to America’s and our own security? Can we put Ukraine at the center of it? Will it help revitalize depressed areas of our economy?
At a moment when the meanings of the words that make up international relations are at stake, and the meanings of words such as “security,” “strength,” and “alliance” are up in the air, we also have a chance to redefine them. .
