Donald Trump is using Ukraine's dire situation to make a buck. Others should take note that US foreign policy is going to be highly transactional going forward.
|
Listen To This Story
 |
President Donald Trump has proposed a “deal” under which the US would continue to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia if Kiev agrees to surrender half of its mineral deposits. It’s either that or he will sit down with Vladimir Putin and hammer out an agreement that will undoubtedly favor Moscow.
We put “deal” in quotation marks because “extortion scheme” would be more appropriate.
Even for somebody as transactional as Trump, that’s a disgusting proposal, not least because the attacker in this case is one of the main antagonists of the US (although a personal ally of the president). In addition, these are resources that will eventually be needed to help the war-torn country rebuild.
For people not as well-versed in international affairs, here is what “the leader of the free world” is suggesting: Imagine a cop stumbling onto a mugging. Instead of arresting the perpetrator, he asks how much money the victim has in her wallet.
Upon hearing that it is $400, the police officer says that he will only intervene if he gets to keep half of the money. He then hands the perpetrator $40 from the victim’s share and sends both on their way.
Oh, and then he would like a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.
That is precisely how Trump wants to conduct foreign policy.
It will be to the detriment of anybody on this planet who is being oppressed. When given the choice, he is going to side with those who have power, because that’s what he respects.
After all, why help the weak when there is nothing in it for him?
Obviously, anybody who supports his administration’s “America First” approach can justifiably say: “Well, at least the police officer stopped the mugging.”
True, but if you don’t want to do the job right, then don’t become a cop.
In other words, if Trump and his Republicans no longer want to support Ukraine, then that is obviously their right. It might be strategically unwise to abdicate American leadership, will certainly lead to a loss of influence, and will benefit enemies of the US, but that kind of isolationist thinking is at least a policy choice.
At the same time, if that’s how Trump wants to conduct foreign policy, then he certainly should not get a seat at the negotiating table because the US no longer has a stake in the conflict.
In the end, this proposal may primarily achieve one purpose: to show America’s (former) allies that they are either on their own or have to pay up in the future.
They should act accordingly. And if, down the road, Ukraine manages to fend off Russia’s invasion or if a peace deal is reached, Kiev should remember that Trump tried to turn a military alliance into an extortion scheme.
In his Navigating the Insanity columns, Klaus Marre provides the kind of hard-hitting, thought-provoking, and often humorous analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
