War and Peace (Prize)

By Anil Madan

There has always been a certain incoherent coherence about Donald Trump. Even as he has pressed his quest to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, he has engaged in a tariff war. But not with enemies of the US, rather, with its friends and allies. He has announced high tariffs on friendly nations such as Canada and India.  And then hiked the tariffs on India even higher because of its purchases of Russian oil that fund Putin’s war effort against Ukraine and for its participation in the BRICS group which he deems hostile to America (which it generally is). But when it comes to adversaries (can we agree that despite the intense interdependence between the US and China, Beijing is, at least in contrast to Canada and India, more an adversary than a cherished friend?), he has not only looked the other way at China’s purchase of Russian oil, but extended his pause on Chinese tariffs for another 90 days. Perhaps the coherence here is that the US is intensely dependent on China and upsetting the delicate balance, especially on rare earth minerals, while negotiating revenue deals with American chip companies for sales to China, effectively does nothing to pressure China to abandon oil imports from Russia.

A woman adjusts her sari as she walks past as students of an art school display their art works calling for peace in Ukraine. Pic – AP

We will return to the subject of tariffs in a bit. First, let us turn from tariff wars to peace in Ukraine.

On Friday, Trump is scheduled to welcome Russia’s President Putin to American soil—the irony that Alaska was formerly Russian soil is not lost on the world—and confer with him on ending the war in Ukraine. There is a certain coherence to the quest to be a Nobel peace laureate, to call for the end of a war. It is certainly incoherent to have such a conference without the President of the nation under attack being invited to the settlement discussions. But then, one can argue that it would be even more incoherent to have President Zelensky present where all discussion would come to an abrupt end when Putin demanded cession of Ukrainian territory, and Zelensky said, not so politely, “Nyet” not just because an aggressor should not be rewarded for starting an illegal war of aggression, but also because the Ukrainian Constitution forbids any such concession. 

The reaction of the world’s nations to Trump’s initiative on ending the bloodshed in Ukraine has been decidedly mixed. The NATO countries and European nations not closely identifying with Putin, have expressed their trepidation that Trump will negotiate away Ukrainian territory and, in consequence, European security, without a “by-your-leave.” Ukraine’s President Zelensky has put up a bold front. On the one hand, he is constrained by national pride, the need to preserve Ukraine’s identity and sovereignty, the principle of not rewarding the aggressor, and the sheer injustice of having the Hobson’s choice of ceding territory or condemning more of his people to death. On the other hand, he and his beleaguered country desperately need relief, namely, that the fighting stops. Reports are that the Ukrainian armed forces are exhausted by their valiant defense effort, suffering attrition from Putin’s relentless attacks and their own lack of resources, manpower, experience battleground leadership, and from a deep national fatigue that has led to war weariness in a nation that cannot afford to be weary. Harking back to Churchill’s promise of Blood, Toil, Sweat, and Tears, the Ukrainians have bled enough, toiled too much, sweated painfully, and shed tears in loneliness, despair, hopelessness, and the realization that their biggest ally may suddenly not care. 

Amidst this 30-month long sojourn of incoherence for Ukraine, there was some coherence when the Europeans and British met with Trump and rallied to establish certain red lines with him. According to The Wall Street Journal, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz who initiated the meeting, said that Trump committed to the European leaders that he wouldn’t negotiate territorial issues, saying that Ukraine must discuss that directly with Russia. 

The Wall Street Journal also reported Trump seemingly accepted that five red lines should hold, but there is a certain incoherence about these as well: a cease-fire as a prerequisite for further talks; any territorial discussions to start from the current front lines; binding Western security guarantees that Russia must accept; Ukraine’s participation in the talks; and support from both the US and Europe, including Ukraine, for any deal.

The incoherence here is that just a few days ago, Trump said that there would have to be a swapping of territory to get a peace deal. Now, we have Zelensky saying that he will not give up any territory, Trump agreeing that he will not negotiate on territorial concessions, but the Europeans saying that “any territorial discussions [are] to start from current front lines.” That sounds like a territorial concession in the offing. Adding to the confusion in The Journal’s report is this: “Merz said Zelensky demonstrated in the meeting that Ukraine is ready to discuss territory, but Zelensky also said that the starting point for any negotiations must be the current battle line.”

Of far more importance is the report that while Trump rejected the idea that NATO would be involved in any security guarantees for Ukraine, he nevertheless accepted that other guarantees would be given jointly by the US and Europe, according to France’s president Macron. Perhaps this is nothing more than a recognition that one of Putin’s red lines has been that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO, and of Trump’s refusal to extend Article 5 of the NATO charter to Ukraine, a nonmember of that organization. There is a certain logic to not committing NATO to indirectly invoke Article 5 to save a non-member.

On the issue of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, the European leaders presented a united front and made clear to Trump that there would be no legal recognition of occupied territories by Ukraine or Europe. Then, somewhat incoherently, they intimated that a recognition of the situation on the ground could be part of a future deal. Perhaps, this is nothing more than an agreement to cease hostilities with positions frozen and a de facto line of control established. 

Trump threatened Putin with severe consequences if he did not agree to a ceasefire. It seems incoherent for a mediator to be threatening one of the participants and then perhaps pressuring the other party to agree to what it has already declared are unacceptable conditions.

Getting back to the tariffs, India’s reaction to Trump’s announcement has been one of alarm, and one could argue, over-the-top. But perhaps, such overreaction is not warranted. Aside from Trump’s throwaway comment that he was imposing tariffs on India not only for its purchases of Russian oil, but for its role in BRICS, it cannot have escaped him that such high tariffs on India are a lose-lose proposition for both countries. Certainly, there is the shock value to Putin that Trump is willing to impose the equivalent of secondary sanctions via the tariff route. Whether Trump can do the same with China remains unclear, given that China has far more leverage than India. On the other hand, the US buys refined Russian oil products from India, and shifting India’s purchasing power to other resources, not including Iran and Russia, will send world oil prices skyrocketing, a result that Trump has repeatedly stated he does not want.

Trump’s tariff threat against India is born of political pressure, not economic fundamentals. Thus, his imposition of high tariffs on Brazil and South Africa must be seen in the same light. In the case of Brazil, he increased tariffs with a demand that the trial of former president Jair Bolsanaro be halted. In the case of South Africa, the motivation is unclear, but Trump has accused the government of discrimination against its white minority populace, a charge that South Africa denies. Nevertheless, Trump has said: “I’ve had a lot of problems with South Africa. They have some very bad policies.” 

Trump’s former national security advisor, John Bolton, called the tariffs on India a disaster and raised the specter that they would drive India to closer ties with China. That seems unlikely. India continues to view China as a threat while maintaining an arm’s length relationship with Beijing. 

Then, there is Pakistan’s nuclear threat with which India must contend. Pakistan’s Army Chief Munir was in the US recently and engaged in nuclear saber rattling: “We are a nuclear nation; if we think we are going down, we’ll take half the world down with us.”  It is not clear who he thinks is going to take Pakistan down or why. India remains dependent on Russian parts and equipment for some of its fighter jets and weaponry. But its long-term future in defense is tied to American technology. And much of that is the product of Indian software engineers in the U.S.

If the peace initiative succeeds, India’s purchase of Russian oil will be a moot point. Indeed, flows of Russian natural gas to Europe may well rise to pre-war levels. 

If the only coherence that comes out of all this is peace in Ukraine and an end to Putin’s war of aggression, the rest of the issues will also likely fall to the wayside.

Cheerz…
Bwana

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 15 August 2025