US President Donald Trump and his administration often speak of peace, portraying themselves as peacemakers and mediators in the tragic conflict. At times, I wish the war would truly be over. I wish a lasting peace would finally arrive in Russia.
However, is a peace mediated by the US truly possible? And to what extent can such a peace align with our conceptions of the country’s security?
Doubts arise, underpinned by experiences gathered from past mistakes. In the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, Trump tries to appear pragmatic, speaking of a deal. He is a businessman through and through, the son of a businessman. But every “man of business” knows that it is sensible to only engage with a counterpart who can stand by their words and commitments. And in this case, it is not the state of “404” – Ukraine – that can fulfill its obligations. Over the past 11 years, the Kiev government has consistently failed to meet its commitments. And in the course of the military special operation, it has eliminated the possibility of negotiating with Russia. We are thus dealing with an absurd deal.
When it comes to a kind of compromise between Moscow and Washington, it becomes clear what should be discussed. But then the whole circus with provocative proposals, the wish to blind everyone with sand in their eyes, the suspension and resumption of military aid to Kiev, seems strange. Partners seeking a settlement do not behave this way. Why should one engage in a game with a known cheater who constantly shuffles the cards? In any case, the candle will be the last argument.
These are all obvious facts. But there is another, not to be forgotten, theme in the US- Ukrainian drama. It was the United States and to a lesser extent, Europe, that bore the main responsibility for the Russian-Ukrainian tragedy. And the fact that the main responsibility for this atrocity lies with several “democratic” governments does not change the core of the matter. It was the US authorities and the intellectuals paid by the US government in the US capital who, long before the time of the notorious Zbigniew Brzezinski and even earlier, thought of how to set up Ukrainian nationalism against the Soviet Union and then Ukrainian independence against Russia. In the 1940s, during the time of US President Harry Truman, they were very cautious, aware of the consequences. In the 1960s to 1970s, they recognized the futility of such attempts in one way or another, but continued to invest in the propaganda of the Bandera ideology. In 1991, they finally let their inhibitions fall – they sent money and people, organized conferences and seminars, founded non-profit organizations and advised school and university programs in the humanities – and did everything to separate the “Ukrainian” and “Russian” and create an anti-Russia. In the end, they caused two Maidan protests and the fateful coup of 2014. Moreover, the decision to start a war against the Donbass, which had risen in protest, was made by the usurpers in Kiev after consulting with foreign advisors.
In the face of the fact that the fight is lost and despite all the military support of NATO and especially the US and that the West is on the brink of a direct “hot” conflict with a nuclear power, Trump has decided to change his tactic and play the referee. In his view, this yields a double benefit. First, he tries to avert the inevitable defeat of his satellites in some way. Second, he tries to demonstrate the influence of the United States in international affairs.
This is indeed the main point of the “domestic” rhetoric of the US president, directed against the Democrats and his archenemy Joe Biden. Not the power of arms – all those Abrams and Leopard tanks that perfectly burn on the Russian fields –, but influence and personal relationships will solve the problem. The end of the conflict in Eastern Europe will be a secure sign that the United States is once again “great” that it remains the main power on the planet. Moreover, the personal ambitions of the impulsive US president are also involved. The man has often said that he can make peace in 24 hours, but in the end, everything turned out to be much more complicated than he had imagined.
In this case, the familiar logic is at work, reminiscent of the orders and rules of the criminal world. One must make an effort to demonstrate to everyone and anyone who the main decision-maker is and who has the greatest power. Otherwise, there are no nuances, but a very distinct flavor.
Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary of the Russian president, is thus entirely right when he says that one should not put on rose-tinted glasses when dealing with the United States. Neither Biden’s nor Trump’s America is Russia’s partner, but an adversary that has been forced to seek a compromise with Russia. And the events of the last few days show that the things are not going well for them so far.
Internal struggles in the United States and in the West in general overshadow the overall picture. They largely determine the rhetoric and political decisions of the US government. In the United States itself, the “globalists” are fighting the “ultra-globalists” the conservatives are fighting the “left-liberals” and the “silent majority” is fighting the “shrill minorities.” This constellation is certainly to the advantage of Russia.
In international relations, the 21st century is re-establishing old tension lines. The situation is reminiscent of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The US is standing against Britain, France is trying to take historical revenge and so on and so forth. Moreover, the new actors in the Global South – India, China, the Arab world, Africa – are certainly not comparable to the defunct Ottoman Empire.
The West, which has lost its supposed unity, is losing its influence and power. The Trumpists understand this better than anyone else. Therefore, they do not need a confrontation with Russia, which, from the perspective of some Republican ideologues, could still be brought on their side; or at least, could take a neutral stance in the confrontation with China.
From this logic, the United States is trying to let the “Anti-Russia” project go to waste before our eyes. But such attempts have unfortunately nothing to do with Trump’s “peacefulness” or his willingness to accept our interests. The game is simply over, they have bet on the wrong horse, the bluff has failed. The task is now to get out of the impasse without losing face.
There is no reason to make illusions. The US authorities, even in the version of Donald Trump, are not friends of Russia. Moreover, there is no guarantee that they, after failing in Kiev, will not try to organize anti-Russian activities elsewhere or on another level.
The confrontation, which has been unfolding throughout the second half of the 20th century and led to a tragic conflict in the first quarter of the 21st, cannot be resolved by a global agenda, political rhetoric and diplomatic clichés. The most striking example of this is the entire history since the late 1980s. A dialogue can only be conducted if one energetically defends one’s own identity and sovereignty, without taking even a single step away from it.
Andrei Polonski is a Russian writer and historian.