China is the main threat to the US, which would benefit from the weakening of the Beijing-Moscow axis. A Trump-Putin deal may entail, however, sacrificing Ukraine and problems for the EU.
While it is clear that Beijing will be the priority, judging by the nominations made for the positions of foreign policy advisers to President Trump, what is not as clear is how the incoming administration intends to get out of the dilemma of the Russian-Ukrainian war. Even more so as, in the grandiose PR plan that the future Trump administration certainly has, this is a first step, aimed at certifying the peacemaker qualities of the future President.
Will Trump sacrifice Ukraine to undermine Russia's alliance with China?
The plan launched in April 2024 by General Keith Kellog, former foreign policy adviser to President Trump and currently the special envoy to Ukraine and Russia, along with Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and former National Security Council Chief of Staff during Trump's first term, with all due respect to its authors, it’s nothing but a long list of praises for the political genius of the former and future American president. Keeping Ukraine suspended in a geopolitical and security purgatory, along with the author's obvious intention to “de facto” recognize the territories controlled by Putin are the only concrete provisions of this plan.
Conceived in the laboratories of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a think tank established in 2021 by key figures from the former Trump administration, the "plan" is rather a lengthy critique of the Biden administration, which the authors blame for lack of strategic vision, compared to the situation of the first Trump administration, which discouraged Putin with the president's "unconventional" style and his "resolute and unpredictable" policy. Instead of continuing the policy of the former administration, through his attitude towards Russia President Biden alienated Putin, thus bringing him closer to Iran, China and North Korea, the authors of the “plan” claim. The only good news one can get from the material is that the US must collaborate with the EU to establish peace in Ukraine, but only provided the European countries take the task of ensuring their own security seriously.
By foreseeing the possibility of deploying international troops to the conflict zone, "under the authority of the UN or OSCE", which shows that the US will not take responsibility for its implementation, the "plan" is nothing more than a siren song to Putin. What the future administration really wants is to give Putin a helping hand, to calm the passion of the Chinese embrace, in which the great strategist from Moscow is struggling.
For the United States, regardless of its political administration, it is vital that the transfer of Russian military technology to China be at least slowed, if not stopped, just as it is that Beijing be cut off from Russian sources of cheap energy. The peace in Ukraine, as shown by the information of the last days, is only a convenient pretext for the resumption of direct relations between Washington and Moscow, which have much more important things to settle. And this even at the risk of the future American president officially recognizing the territorial changes occured as a result of violations of the rule of law.
Despite repeated statements about "imposing peace in Ukraine by force", while China is perceived as the most dangerous adversary, Trump's vision of the relationship between Moscow and Kyiv is more like that of F.D. Roosevelt, who led the US from 1932 to 1945. Convinced that the alliance that led to the predictable defeat of Germany and Japan must be maintained after the war ended, Roosevelt was willing to recognize "de facto" what he called the "legitimate interests" of the Soviets in Eastern Europe, as long as he did not have to sign a treaty or agreement clearly stipulating this thing. Equally true is the fact that the change in attitude after the coming to power of Harry Truman, who began his term with a suspension of the lend-lease program, not only did not remove the Soviets from the occupied states, but accelerated the establishment of communist regimes in them.
Against the background of the signals coming from Washington, Russia’s claims and aggression in Europe are raising
Today, the new American president considers Russia to be a secondary danger to America’s global interests, and Putin a potential "companion", a little turbulent, but controllable in rigor. Seen from Washington, things really seem to be this way. Unlike Russia, whose economy is already in crisis, the US can afford to wait longer so that Putin's claims become reasonable. For now, Moscow is on the political and military offensive, and not just in Ukraine. Europe as a whole, but especially the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe, including Germany, is not only under the pressure of the Russian propaganda apparatus, but also under the pressure of the vast diversion and sabotage apparatus controlled by Moscow. As the time for negotiations approaches, the pressure on Europe will increase significantly, so that Putin can also bring to the negotiating table things that he does not actually control. It is certain, however, that Russia's war economy has begun to shake, and the solution of confiscating the population's savings appears increasingly tempting to Putin's courtiers. However, the greater the urgency felt by the Kremlin, the bolder and more intrusive its policy will be in Europe until a peace settlement is reached that satisfies its stage objectives.
The recent interview given by Putin's aide on shipbuilding, former FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev, shows that Moscow is still far from moderating its claims. Putin has only one lever of pressure on Trump, however, and that is strictly related to the urgency of a peace settlement so that the new administration can justify the claims it makes every day. In typical Soviet negotiator fashion, Russian diplomats have recently maximized Moscow's demands, hoping that the American president will be willing to make concessions in order to present himself to the world as a peacemaker. At stake are not only the Ukrainian territories, which Moscow already controls and which almost no one questions today - a fact that already constitutes a victory for Putin - but also the future international status of Ukraine, as well as the presence of NATO in Central and South-Eastern Europe and the Baltic Sea area. Patrushev stated this as clearly as possible, for those who had ears to hear. The transformation of a cut-off Ukraine, according to Putin's will, into a supposed buffer state will not lead to the strengthening of NATO's eastern flank but to its immediate dilution.
Another goal for Russia is to exclude the European Union from the negotiating table, a goal well supported by the future American administration, while at the same time pampering China's susceptibility. That is why, in the mentioned interview, Patrushev felt obliged to mention the fact that Russia has a strategic partnership with China, which is not dependent on the American administrations. The shipbuilding adviser's references to the EU's alleged loss of legitimacy to speak on behalf of countries such as Hungary, Slovakia, Austria and Romania seem more like an indiscretion on his part. The mention of Austria, but especially Romania, alongside Hungary and Slovakia, rather shows Patrushev's conviction that Moscow holds important positions in these countries, which will produce, in the case of Austria and Romania, important changes in their attitude towards Russian politics, in the near future.
Judging by what is happening in Romania, where Russian networks have started to perform at all levels, Patrushev's confidence does not seem unjustified. That is why, in the Moscow-directed show of the false humanitarian crisis in Transnistria, the name of Romania is not mentioned by the Russian propagandists. The target is only the president Maia Sandu, whom Putin urgently wants out. That is why Putin's supporters in Romania, disguised as patriots and nationalists, as you can see, do not voice any opinion regarding the energy issue in the Republic of Moldova. It remains to be seen whether the authorities in Bucharest will approve the transit via Romania of gas supplied by Russia for Transnistria as "humanitarian aid".
The decision in this matter will be a serious indicator of the direction in which Bucharest is going. If it accepts, it means that Romania will directly participate in Putin's plan to destabilize the government in Chisinau and sabotage President Maia Sandu. Anyway, in recent years, Moscow has been seriously struggling to make the Romanian politicians in power accept the prospect of annexing the Republic of Moldova, as a Greek gift. It doesn't take a genius to realize that such Russian generosity, at the expense of another country's territory, is only the first phase of a larger plan to throw the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe into a self-destructive race of territorial claims in order to control them politically. That is precisely why, in his typical brutal and threatening manner, Patrushev insisted on the possibility of the disappearance of Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova through foreign military occupation or absorption.
Europe, seen by the new US administration as "a ground for compromise with authoritarian powers"
Meanwhile, the future Trump administration has realized that depriving Ukraine of weapons and aid is nothing more than a way to help Putin win the war and with it almost half of Europe. Donald Trump has opened so many fronts, with so few allies and almost no concrete war plans, that in the near future, the US global influence will only decrease. For now, the only foreign policy direction that is quite clear is that of China. The nomination of Ivan Kanapathy to the National Security Council, responsible for China and Southeast Asia, shows that Trump is determined to curb the Chinese expansion. A former military attaché to Taiwan, also present in the first Trump administration, Kanapathy is not so much a radical on the Taiwan issue as a determined partisan of an active deterrence of China. In addition, the adviser is a supporter of increased military spending, even at the sacrifice of prosperity. To more effectively deter China, Kanapathy believes that Washington must continue to arm Taipei and continue to support the policy of cooperation between the two Chinese states, which prevented Taiwan's international isolation. The more decisively Washington distances itself from the Taiwan independence scenario, Kanapathy rightly believes, the more emboldened China will feel to take unilateral action.
The potential future European affairs adviser Andrew Peek, who is expected to manage the relations with Europe, Russia and the peace in Ukraine, is more interested in the Middle East. A "veteran" of the first Trump administration, Peek was investigated in 2019 on suspicion of "doing favors" and "unauthorized international travels" to the Czech Republic and Qatar, but this does not appear to have affected his political career in any way. And because Andrew Peek is a nostalgic for the Iranian imperial days, in preparation for collaboration with the incoming Trump administration, Russia continues with determined steps its policy of strengthening alliances with anti-American dictatorial regimes in search of strategic military technology. The signing of the Strategic Partnership Agreement with Iran the other day, which follows the one with Pyongyang, shows that a peace agreement between Trump and Putin, on a platform that is disadvantageous to China, comes with the obligation on America’s part to find ways of communication with Tehran and Pyongyang. How much American interests support this "dialogue" remains to be seen in the coming period.
So effective was Donald Trump’s PR campaign that all of the US’s major opponents have prepared their positions for these negotiations in an exemplary manner. Given that the main economic plan of the Trump administration consists of abdicating from globalization, such an attitude is expected to revitalize American industry, but not to increase the country's international influence. But, under no circumstances will prices fall, as Trump repeatedly promised from the doorstep of his residence. Prioritizing American strategic goals and detonating the moral foundation of its international policy will allow the incoming administration some initial successes, but in the medium term their cost will be far greater than the benefits. For now, America seems to only want to keep the benefits of globalization without paying its costs. The stratagem can work with powers that have committed themselves to efforts too large for their real capabilities, such as Russia, but veterans of international sanctions, such as Iran and North Korea, or rising giants, such as China, have room for negotiation somewhat broader and much clearer action programs than those of the Trump administration.
So far, all the incoming administration has managed to do is sow the seeds of political disorganization in Europe, which it sees as a ground for compromise with authoritarian powers. Under such conditions, even considering the low capacity of united Europe to react effectively, it is obvious that the countries here will quickly be faced with tough choices that will radically influence their immediate future. Until America figures out again what and especially how to be, the European countries must project their future in a brave way, taking history into account, but starting with the premise that it can radically change.
