Trump has just sabotaged Ukraine's bargaining power with Russia - whose side is he on?
Now, in any future negotiations, Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky 's position will be weaker.
On Wednesday, Ukraine's military capacity was immediately undermined in the medium term by Pete Hegseth telling his fellow Nato defence ministers that "Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and non-lethal aid to Ukraine'.
Shortly after Hesgeth's press conference, President Donald Trump said he had spoken to the Russian president Vladimir Putin about starting negotiations to end the war and would 'inform' Zelensky about the conversation.
The US has provided about $120 billion to Ukraine, about half of that military aid, and the rest of Nato has matched that military spend too. But in ruling out any future funding increase from the US for Ukraine, Hegseth is sending a signal to the Kremlin that the US is backing away.
Zelensky has argued that any future settlement with Russia, which currently controls about 22 per cent of his country, would depend on 150,000-200,000 foreign troops as a guarantee against another invasion.
He recently insisted that this could only be achieved with American involvement.
Hegseth has ruled that out.
There would be no American boots on the ground in Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping force. 'To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be US troops deployed to Ukraine,' he said.
There was no need to spell this out before talks with Russia. Part of Zelensky's negotiating tactic would have been the mere suggestion that US troops could be on Ukrainian soil. That would have given the Russians pause for thought.
But if foreign troops from Europe, Canada, and other Ukraine-supporting nations were deployed they would have brought the full weight of the Nato alliance with them.
Not any more.
"If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-Nato mission and they should not be covered under Article 5," Hegseth said.
Article 5 is the all for one and one for all clause in the Nato foundation document that says that an attack on a Nato member is an attack on all of them. It has only been invoked once, when the US was attacked by al-Qaeda on 9/11.
Now, Putin need no longer fear that Nato's full might will be brought to bear against him if he bombs British troops in Ukraine.
That fear was a key part of Zelensky's future platform. It was also a profoundly important part of the power of Nato as an alliance. And now that power has evaporated.
Mark Rutte, the Kremlin will already have noted, ducked the question entirely when he was asked by Sky News, before the Hegseth statements, whether the US could be counted upon to come to the aid of a Nato ally if it was attacked.
The Nato secretary general waffled about the need for more defence spending across Nato but didn't once say what would have once been automatic: that the US would always come to the aid of a Nato member under attack.
That's a further boost to the Russian position in future negotiations.
Part of Zelensky's platform for peace has been that Ukraine should, eventually, get Nato membership. That way, in his view, Russia would think twice about invading again.
That's gone too now.
And so has Ukraine's demand that Russia, which invaded in 2014 and seized some of the eastern Donbas region as well as Crimea, withdraw back to its own borders.
That demand, which has the backing of the international community and is demanded by international law, is an 'illusory' position, the US defence secretary said.
'We hear your concerns on stepping up for Ukraine, and we hear your concerns on stepping up for European security,' the UK's defence secretary John Healey said in response.
But so far none of the Nato defence ministers appear to have grasped the major strategic shift that the Trump administration has now embarked upon.
This week Trump said that Ukraine 'may be Russian some day'. That begs the question: whose side is he really on?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
15 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Russia fires drones at civilian areas of Ukraine after sacking transport chief
Russian airports grounded hundreds of flights due to the threat of Ukrainian drone attacks. At least 10 civilians were killed and 38 injured, including three children, in Russian attacks over the previous 24 hours, Ukrainian officials said. Russia has intensified its aerial strikes on civilian areas after more than three years of war. Over the past week, Russia launched some 1,270 drones, 39 missiles and almost 1,000 powerful glide bombs at Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky said on Monday. Russia's bigger army is also trying hard to break through at some points along the roughly 620-mile front line, where Ukrainian forces are severely stretched. The strain of keeping Russia's invasion at bay, and the lack of progress in direct peace talks, has compelled Ukraine to seek more military help from the US and Europe. Mr Zelensky said on Saturday that Ukraine had sealed deals with European allies and a leading US defence company to step up drone production, ensuring Kyiv receives 'hundreds of thousands' more this year. 'Air defence is the main thing for protecting life,' Mr Zelensky wrote on Telegram on Monday. That includes developing and manufacturing interceptor drones that can stop Russia's long-range Shahed drones, he said. Extensive use of drones has also helped Ukraine compensate for its troop shortages on the front line. One person was killed in the southern city of Odesa, 27 were injured in north-eastern Kharkiv and falling drone debris caused damage in two districts of Kyiv, the capital, during nighttime drone attacks, Ukrainian authorities said. Russian short-range drones also killed two people and injured two others in the northern Sumy region, officials said. Sumy is one of the places where Russia has concentrated large numbers of troops. Also, nine people were injured and seven killed in the eastern Donetsk region, governor Vadym Filashkin said. Meanwhile, Russia's Defence Ministry said on Monday that its troops shot down 91 Ukrainian drones in 13 Russian regions overnight, as well as over the Black Sea and the Russian-annexed Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea. The Kremlin dismissed transport minister Roman Starovoyt on Monday, an order published on the Kremlin website said. The announcement did not give a reason for Mr Starovoyt's dismissal. Over the weekend, hundreds of flights were cancelled or delayed at Moscow's Sheremetyevo and St Petersburg's Pulkovo airports. Other airports in western and central Russia also faced disruption because of Ukrainian drone attacks.
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Russia bombards Ukraine as over 100 drones fired overnight
Ukrainian officials reported at least 10 civilians killed and 38 injured, including three children, in Russian attacks over the past 24 hours. Russia launched over 100 drones at civilian areas of Ukraine overnight, intensifying aerial strikes after more than three years of conflict. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that Russia launched approximately 1,270 drones, 39 missiles, and nearly 1,000 glide bombs at Ukraine in the past week. Ukraine is seeking increased military assistance from the US and Europe, with President Zelenskyy announcing deals to boost drone production to "hundreds of thousands" more this year. The Kremlin dismissed its Transport Minister, Roman Starovoyt, following widespread flight disruptions at Russian airports attributed to Ukrainian drone threats.
The Guardian
35 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Europe does not have to choose between guns and butter. There is another way
European governments are once again haunted by a tough choice between financing the military or spending on social programmes. That, at any rate, is the narrative that has taken hold since Donald Trump's retreat from the postwar global security order and the urgent pressure to rearm Europe. But to frame the dilemma facing Europe in this way is a big mistake. History teaches us that the political choice has never been about guns or butter, but rather guns or taxes. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s seemed to close almost a century of global ideological conflict, but it was also supposed to make us all richer. With the end of the cold war, Europeans would no longer need to uphold an expensive military apparatus for territorial defence. Governments ditched conscription and walked back defence outlays. Cashing in on that so-called 'peace dividend', governments could spend on the domestic priorities of their liking, boosting non-military investment. Last month's Nato summit in The Hague showed how this tide has been dramatically reversed. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and Trump's uncertain commitment to Nato means that European governments have no choice but to invest more in their own mutual defence. The peace dividend, as Kristalina Georgieva, the head of the IMF, stated, 'is gone'. Europe's Nato members pledged to increase spending on 'hard defence', such as tanks and military salaries, from 2% to 3.5% of GDP by 2035. The question now is how to finance it. For some experts, the only way to build a warfare state that can deter Russia is to slash social spending. After all, goes the misleading argument, governments in the 1990s splashed the savings from defence on expensive welfare promises. Even before the Nato agreement in The Hague, the public were being softened up for the new reality. In a TV address in March, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, warned citizens that in a 'more brutal' world, they would have to make budget sacrifices. Macron ruled out higher taxes. Denmark's prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, decided to scrap a public holiday to finance higher defence spending. The UK has cut savagely into its international development aid budget for the same reason. But Europe would be drawing the entirely wrong lessons from history if it weakened the welfare state to build up the military state. There is another way: instead of slashing social spending, Europe's governments should raise taxes on corporations and capital to finance deterrence. Let's look at what actually happened in the 1990s. While cutting defence spending after the collapse of the Soviet Union allowed governments to increase social spending, it mostly gave them room to cut taxes and budget deficits, which they did with great zeal, as the 1990s neoliberal consensus took hold and tax competition intensified. Yes, the 'peace dividend' helped to finance big increases in social spending, but with ageing societies it was mostly devoted to pensions, health and longterm care. Social protection for the working age population has fallen across Europe since the end of the cold war. But from the mid 1980s to 2023, corporate income tax rates fell by around half within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Capital gains tax rates also dropped significantly: from up to 53% in the early 1990s to 26% today in Germany, or from up to 30% to up to 24% today in the UK for the same period. The 'peace dividend' was in fact a boon for the wealthiest in Europe. Savings in defence not only went to the private sector via tax cuts, but also via reduced fiscal deficits. Germany's adoption of its contentious constitutional 'debt brake' in 2009 helped it to achieve a balanced budget; something that would have been impossible without cutting defence spending to the bone. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion In the years ahead, Europe cannot afford politically to place the burden of the defence buildup on the most disadvantaged groups. More public debt, as Germany has now committed itself to, will be necessary. But debt is often a regressive tax, weighing more on the poorest, as the wealthy own a large share of the debt. Moreover, if EU members don't agree to common borrowing to finance the defence surge, as happened during the pandemic, financial markets may not let EU countries with a high debt load, such as Italy or France, increase deficit-spending on defence. The 'new normal' of higher defence spending should thus also be funded by increasing taxes, especially on corporate income, high wealth and capital gains. This won't be possible without limiting tax competition at a Europe-wide level. Indeed, the idea that some European tax havens continue to suck up corporate tax resources from others while they free-ride on their defence spending will become increasingly difficult to sustain. France and Germany have long pushed for the harmonisation of corporate taxes across the EU's 27 members. The EU must now rein in tax-dumping countries such as neutral Ireland. Europe cannot achieve better defence without better tax revenues. And only a defence buildup that is supported by the wider public across Europe can run beyond the short-term momentum and thus develop into a credible deterrence. The experience of 'military Keynesianism' globally, and across history, has never been about guns or butter, but guns and butter. In a war, you not only need weapons, but also a supportive population to operate them. Keeping the peace on the home front is just as important as holding the line in the trenches. Rather than slashing the welfare state to build up the military state, Europe's leaders should think about how to improve and modernise social spending. Only the prospect of a better and fairer world will keep our societies united and capable of fighting. Shahin Vallée is a senior research fellow at the German Council for Foreign Relations. Joseph de Weck is a fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute
