By Denko Maleski
No one paid much attention to Henry Kissinger’s words when, in the context of the war in Ukraine, he warned of a danger. Specifically, that in the relations between the major nuclear powers, the concept of “democracy versus autocracy” should not become the fundamental element of their confrontation. This very policy, which began with Clinton, was continued by Bush and Obama, and reached its peak under President Biden, became the Grand Strategy of American foreign policy.
Behind the democratic ideology stood the struggle for greater power, for dominance. The logic was that America was strong enough to impose Ukraine’s NATO membership on Russia and turn the country into its own strategic outpost. Forget ideology—look at great powers as black boxes engaged in a constant struggle for increased power, a product of the anarchic structure of the international system, where there is no central authority to appeal to if a state feels threatened. This anarchic structure, as John Mearsheimer argues, often produces “the tragedy of great powers”: a permanent struggle for power and influence that can escalate into a world war. The world was on the brink of nuclear catastrophe, facing a direct clash between the two largest nuclear powers, America and Russia.
I am not a fan of Donald Trump’s policies, but when it comes to war or peace, I choose peace. The descriptions of a nuclear confrontation between two heavily armed nuclear powers—where humanity would be wiped out in just two hours—deter me from any fantasies of nuclear victory. Clearly, this scenario is unacceptable both for Americans and their new president, Trump. The much-criticized “transactional politics” of the new U.S. president has actually come in handy in the crisis the world finds itself in. As a businessman, Trump does not think in terms of “democracy versus autocracy” but rather follows the maxim that no one ever kills a customer. And to him, the whole world is a potential customer. I believe all his moves regarding Russia are well thought out and stem from discussions with Putin.
What Ukraine and the EU accuse Trump of—being a poor negotiator who “gave away everything” even before talks began—is, in fact, a calculated move. He knows that without meeting Russia’s demands for international recognition of the territories it took from Ukraine, Ukraine’s neutrality, and its disarmament, there will be no peace. Moreover, Trump acknowledged America’s role in the start of the war by insisting that Ukraine join NATO. If he had entered into traditional negotiations, he would have failed—either he would have had to capitulate at the negotiating table or continue the war. Instead, he presents his actions as being out of his “own goodwill” rather than under Russian pressure.
“Sign a ceasefire and take what you can as peace, because we are withdrawing,” Trump tells Zelensky. He will say the same to the Europeans, who are terrified of a total American withdrawal from Europe. The message to yesterday’s allies is clear: under no circumstances will America enter a nuclear war with Russia.
Just think about it. Neither Trump nor any other U.S. president would do so, even if Russia occupied all of Ukraine. Vice President Vance recently stated that he does not care about Ukraine’s fate, whatever it may be. Before we express moral outrage, we should ask ourselves: Is it in America’s INTEREST to engage in a suicidal war with Russia over Ukraine?
Of course not.
It wasn’t any different when Biden and Boris Johnson insisted that Zelensky not sign a peace deal and continue the war—but no one said it as openly as Trump is now.
That part of the puzzle—that neither America nor any European country would go to nuclear war over Ukraine—Zelensky had to figure out on his own. He miscalculated, and now the consequences for Ukraine are tragically severe. As for his personal fate, at the end of the peace imposed by Trump, Zelensky will have to sign away territories, accept Ukraine’s neutrality, and agree to its disarmament—while facing the anger of the Ukrainian people.
We should remember that nothing is final yet. My experience with the “Yugoslav” peace negotiations tells me that the risk of complications is always present.
