Trump doesn’t genuinely want Ukraine to take back territories, Martin Jay writes.
Join us on Telegram
, Twitter
, and VK
.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Just when you think you have your head around Donald Trump’s strategy in Ukraine, he shifts the ground and you’re left scratching your head again wondering what just happened. Just recently we all had this moment when Trump announced a kind of U-turn on Ukraine and Russia and seemed to be talking up Kiev getting a new level of support from the U.S.
On September 23rd, at the UNGA meeting in New York City, he is reported to have said “I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form,” Trump wrote. “With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option.”
At the time, this captured the attention of western media while stunning leaders around the world. Previously, we should recall, he was pushing for a new deal whereby Ukraine would never be able to reclaim all the territory that Russia has occupied since seizing the Crimean Peninsula in 2014.
And so, this flip-flop played into the hands of Zelensky and European leaders who believed that finally their day had come. But journalists could not go deeper and see what was the real move here. In reality, he was signalling to Putin to get on with the war and make decisive victories which will bring everyone to the table again but whereby the realities are tilted towards an outcome, rather than political posturing and empty statements. Trump was being duplicitous in that he doesn’t genuinely want Ukraine to take back territories. It is simply that he is only interested, fundamentally, in one thing which is important to remember which is keeping everyone confused and dazed by his enigma. Remaining misunderstood and hiding behind ambiguity and opaque statements is really the core of who Trump is. This is where he operates and is comfortable. Don’t judge him by his statements, but by his actions.
Since this extraordinary statement at UNGA has Trump proposed or signed off any new weapon systems to Ukraine? No. And this is not because the U.S. stockpiles are so absurdly low and it would take at least a year to supply them. It is more about politics and his own image. He is still holding out for an outcome which on the ground is beneficial to Russia while internationally presents Trump to the world as a deal broker, a peace maker. He wants to be the one who saves Ukraine at the last moment whereby he emerges as a victorious statesman above the heads of Macron, Starmer and Merz.
There’s only one problem with this analogy: Trump is neither a great statesman nor a deal maker. One of the greatest myths about him is that he pulls off great deals. He even had a book ghost written called The Art of The Deal which presents the notion that he is a genius at pulling off deals. But it’s all BS. In reality Trump is beyond hopeless at making deals and in reality, to those who know him, has a poor record in business, with too many failed projects behind him to be taken seriously. Where he extends himself and to some extent succeeds is in front of the cameras as a showman. If you want to look for one lucid example of a business venture which gave him real payback, then look no farther than his TV career as the business guru of The Apprentice.
In this light, we can view the absurd statements and U-turns for what they are: a media ruse. The sudden shift from one moment being Putin’s best buddy in Alaska and playing for the cameras there briefly to more recently cosying up to Zelensky. Trump’s real respect is for Putin. This never falters but the man child needs reciprocation and the payback didn’t come after Alaska, neither politically nor in terms of raw business and so these messages which he is sending are all about him being hurt and neglected.
It’s the same story with the Tomahawks. These long-range missiles are now in the news as, once again, it would seem that three months never passes without western media obsessing over a new weapon which is presented as a game changer. Was it only last year when British pundits all announced that Storm Shadow missiles would be the ultimate game changer against Russia? Before that it was tanks.
Who planted the story in the media about Tomahawks? Trump did, of course, albeit via his chief sycophant J D Vance. “We’re certainly looking at a number of requests from the Europeans,” he told Fox News, when probed on the subject.
The idea, if sanctioned by Mr Trump, would mean EU governments paying for shipments of Tomahawks to Ukraine through a NATO-led scheme.
Keith Kellogg, the U.S. president’s Ukraine envoy, in a rare moment of clarity, went further to declare that Kiev would be permitted to conduct long-range strikes inside Russia.
“I think reading what he [Trump] has said, and reading what Vice-President Vance has said … the answer is yes. Use the ability to hit deep. There are no such things as sanctuaries,” the former general also told Fox.
Yet Trump cannot be serious. The Tomahawk subject is proving to be very effective at stirring up a hornet’s nest of speculation which places Trump at the centre of the media vortex, but the real story here is that it’s actually not a story. The idea that NATO would buy these missiles via EU countries and then allow Ukraine to hit Moscow with them is pure fantasy and should be seen at face value as another preposterous media bluff that Trump is so easily capable of doing. For Tomahawks to be used against Moscow would mean all grey areas of convenient ambiguity in this war between NATO and Russia – which suit Trump and western leaders – would be over. What western hacks don’t understand about Tomahawks is that they really are a game changer which puts NATO in direct conflict with Russia. No more bullshit. If a Tomahawk is detected by Russia as approaching any cities in Russia, the assumption will be that it has a nuclear warhead which means a retaliatory strike will be ordered immediately.
Of course, there is the possibility that Trump would allow the Europeans to set them up in Ukraine and, on paper at least, let the Ukrainians operate them. But, in reality, they have to be operated by U.S. soldiers and the authority would still have to come from Trump. It is inconceivable that he will step outside the boundaries of this conflict and conveniently hand over these kind of decisions to EU leaders or even the Ukrainian regime itself. The last time longer-range missiles were given the green light by the White House was in November of last year by Biden who allowed the Ukrainians to use ATACAMs inside Russia which have a range of a mere 300 kms. Trump has not allowed this to continue and has not signed off on new supplies so it is hardly imaginable he will be the one in history who takes “Biden’s war” to a new level with Tomahawks, although they are serving a valuable purpose in keeping him on the front pages. The real heart of the matter with any peace deal scenario in Ukraine is that it always places Trump as the jewel in the crown. For the moment Tomahawk chatter does that very well.
