Before the U.S. elections, incoming President Donald Trump claimed he wanted to see an end to the war in Ukraine. In fact, he bragged that he could stop the conflict “within 24 hours of taking office.” (The Hill, Dec. 30)
Chicago, mid-May 2012, during week of anti-NATO actions. WW PHOTO
Recent developments, however, show there will likely be little difference between the incoming Trump administration and the outgoing Biden administration regarding military aid and funding to Ukraine.
When asked by podcaster Lex Fridman on how he intends on ending the conflict, Trump responded by saying, “I can’t give you those plans, because if I give you those plans, I’m not going to be able to use them. They’ll be unsuccessful. Part of it’s [a] surprise.” (al-Jazeera, Dec. 30)
A Nov. 6 Wall Street Journal article reported that Trump’s plans for a “ceasefire” in Ukraine involve delaying Kyiv’s NATO membership by 20 years, citing various sources close to the incoming president.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov have openly ridiculed Trump’s pompous posturing. Putin rejected the idea that a deferral in Ukraine’s membership in NATO would be satisfactory enough for Moscow during an annual press interaction in late December.
Putin and Lavrov highlighted that outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden already made a similar suggestion in 2021. At that time, Biden allegedly offered to defer Ukraine’s admission into NATO for a minimum of 10 to 15 years.
In response to the leaked reports about Trump’s tentative ideas for a “peace” agreement, Lavrov stated: “We are not happy, of course, with the proposals made by members of the Trump team to postpone Ukraine’s admission to NATO for 20 years and to station British and European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine.” (The Hill, Dec. 30)
Lavrov further asserted he believes that peace can only occur through “reliable and legally binding agreements that would eliminate the root causes of the conflict and seal a mechanism precluding the possibility of their violation.”
Trump seeks profits, not ‘peace’
Trump and his far-right cohorts have been publicly critical of the Biden administration’s approach towards the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Despite their sporadic use of the word “peace” regarding the ongoing proxy war against Russia, Trump and his inner circle prioritize personal financial gain. Trump’s appointment of 13 billionaires to his cabinet or staff exhibits the new administration’s profit-driven motives.
In distinguishing himself from his predecessor, Trump has been more critical towards NATO, albeit from a reactionary, chauvinist viewpoint. According to the Financial Times: “Trump’s team has told European officials that the incoming U.S. president will demand NATO member states increase defense spending to 5% of GDP but plans to continue supplying military aid to Ukraine.” (Dec. 20)
In a recent interview with Time magazine, Trump promised he would continue the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine. “I want to reach an agreement, and the only way you’re going to reach an agreement is not to abandon,” Trump said. (cnn.com, Dec. 12) For Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the Azov Battalion forces, anything short of NATO membership is considered “abandonment.”
Trump and his wealthy acquaintances have no interest in helping anyone suffering in war-torn Ukraine. However, open-ended war in the region only benefits investors directly involved in the military and weapons industries. A “ceasefire,” on the other hand, could potentially open more investment opportunities for additional stakeholders, and that provides the main incentive for Trump to obtain some type of “peace” agreement.
Challenges to ending the proxy war
Regardless of what Trump wants, the U.S. imperialist war hawks and defense contractors are dedicated to prolonging the war aimed at destroying Russia, no matter how many Ukrainians and Russians are killed.
U.S. military and political leaders have intervened in Ukraine since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. This U.S. involvement escalated with the 2004 nationalistic and anti-communist “Orange Revolution” and intensified during the 2013-14 neo-Nazi led “Maidan” coup.
U.S. imperialism will continue to accelerate the proxy war against Moscow, no matter who is “commander-in-chief.” Remember that although Barack Obama campaigned with a program to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the Pentagon generals sabotaged every step in that direction. Obama increased U.S. forces in 2009 instead.
Congress had appropriated more than $174 billion by last April towards the ongoing proxy war, draining resources that could otherwise be used to provide health care, cancel student debt and rebuild the failing U.S. infrastructure. The outgoing Biden administration announced one last “substantial” weapons aid package for Ukraine on Jan. 7.
Only a militant, multinational, anti-imperialist movement can genuinely help workers in Ukraine and Russia, as well as the rest of the world, by fighting to end the NATO-led proxy war and all wars funded by U.S. tax dollars.