The Empire Strikes Out

Breakfast with Bwana

By Anil Madan

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that had he been President in 2022, Putin would never have attacked Ukraine, and that if he did become President again, he’d end Russia’s war on Ukraine on his first day in office. Inauguration Day for Trump 2.0 was on January 20th this year. The war has raged on for seven months after that first day in office, and Putin shows no signs of abating his attacks on Ukraine.

The recent summit in Alaska was touted by Trump as the setting for a ceasefire that would lead to a peace agreement. Since Putin attacked Ukraine and President Zelensky has repeatedly called for a ceasefire and expressed a willingness to negotiate — but not to negotiate away Ukraine’s territory — a ceasefire was entirely within Putin’s control.

Trump says ‘great progress,’ but stops short of announcing ceasefire after Putin summit. Pic – YouTube

Before the summit, Trump sought to raise the stakes for Putin by declaring in response to a reporter’s question about what would happen if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire: “Yes, they will. There will be consequences.” When pressed for specifics, Trump demurred but emphasized the spectre of severity: “I don’t have to say. There will be very severe consequences.”

Meanwhile, as I have previously noted, Trump increased tariffs on India to 50% both because India has continued to buy Russian oil and because it is a member of the BRICS group of countries which he deems are hostile to America.

If Trump’s threats of severe consequences for Putin and the spectre of an indirect route to secondary sanctions were an indicator that the Empire was preparing to strike back, by the end of a short summit meeting, it became clear that the Empire had not struck back, and indeed, failed even to strike a deal on a temporary ceasefire.

Since then, things have taken a more ominous turn. Russia’s attacks on Ukraine continue to escalate. Obviously, Trump has all but completely backed off the idea of more sanctions on Russia and showed no appetite for imposing sanctions on China for its ongoing support of Putin’s war on Ukraine.

Before the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska, Zelensky accurately read the situation. While expressing hope that the US, Europe, and other countries that seek peace, might compel Russia to make peace, he wryly observed: “At present, there is no sign that the Russians are preparing to end the war.”

Nor has the situation changed. When Putin said, after the summit: “I agree with President Trump. He said today that Ukraine’s security must be ensured by all means. Of course, we are ready to work on this,” President Macron of France read through the deception: “When I look at the situation and the facts, I don’t see President Putin very willing to get peace now.”

Details of what was said between Putin and Trump in Alaska are sketchy. Nevertheless, we can make some well-defined conclusions about the results.

First, Putin was not about to bend to Trump’s demands and instead, sought to gain the upper hand and bend Trump to his will. He seems to have succeeded in convincing Trump to abandon his call for an immediate ceasefire and adopt the Russian view that a comprehensive agreement on a permanent peace is the only viable approach. This does nothing to stop the attacks on Ukraine and the ongoing carnage and given Putin’s insistence that Ukraine formally cede Crimea which Russia has annexed, as well as the Donbas comprising Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions. This is Ukraine’s industrial heartland to the east.

Second, perhaps in response to Putin’s resolute refusal to agree on a ceasefire, Trump abandoned his call for that result.

Third, the summit all but ended Trump’s and America’s involvement in the peace process except perhaps as the host for future talks between Putin and Zelensky. The Empire not only did not strike back, but the Empire also staged a retreat. In the wake of this, the peace process, if one can call what remains a process, is likely to pivot to a European British centric initiative. This was evident from Trump’s throwing the ball to the Europeans and Brits.

Fourth, although it is right to pursue even the faint glimmer of a cessation of Russia’s relentless assault on Ukraine, the Europeans and Brits alone cannot bring this about without American help. Such help must have three aspects: first, a robust set of sanctions including secondary sanctions on Russia to deprive Putin of the funding necessary to carry on his war. Second, the US must provide a continuing flow of weapons, offensive and defensive to Ukraine even if these are passed through to NATO countries first. Third, the US must find a way to stop Iranian and North Korean supplies to Russia.

It is beyond cavil that there can be no lasting peace for Ukraine without iron-clad security guarantees. Unfortunately, history teaches that Ukraine relies on such guarantees at its peril. The 1994 Budapest memorandum declared American, British, and Russian assurances of respecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity and independence. This was when Ukraine transferred all nuclear weapons that had been on its territory as part of the Soviet Union, to the Russian Federation. Putin has also violated the 2015 Minsk agreements by attacking Ukraine. The US has all but ignored the declarations in the US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership renewed by the Biden administration on November 10, 2021. That document stated, inter alia:

* The United States and Ukraine intend to continue a range of substantive measures to prevent external direct and hybrid aggression against Ukraine and hold Russia accountable for such aggression and violations of international law, including the seizure and attempted annexation of Crimea and the Russia-led armed conflict in parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, as well as its continuing malign behaviour.

* The United States does not and will never recognize Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea and reaffirms its full support for international efforts, including in the Normandy Format, aimed at negotiating a diplomatic resolution to the Russia-led armed conflict in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine on the basis of respect for international law, including the UN Charter.

Keep in mind that these proclamations are from a document signed before the latest 2022 attack by Putin.

The latest development is that whereas President Trump has stated that the US might augment British and European security guarantees for Ukraine, with support from the air, there is no commitment that US troops will have a presence in Ukraine. This makes talk of an Nato Article 5 like security guarantee, essentially vaporware.

In a late-breaking development, The Wall Street Journal reports that is that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, has warned that Russia should effectively hold veto power over any action to assist Ukraine after a peace deal is reached, rendering planned Western security guarantees for Kyiv moot and delivering a setback to negotiations championed by President Trump.

According to Lavrov, Russia would have a veto power over any action by the other guarantors of Ukrainian security — making those assurances pointless. On Wednesday, Lavrov said China should also have equal powers in these guarantees. “We will safeguard our legitimate interests in a firm and harsh manner,” Lavrov said. “Seriously discussing issues of ensuring security without the Russian Federation is a utopia and a path to nowhere.”

So, there you have it. The Empire strikes out.

Cheerz…
Bwana

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 22 August 2025