Throwing Ukraine Under The Bus? - No, Just A Welcome Return To A Machiavellian World Order

Michael Kantor had worn a Ukrainian flag on his lapel since the Russian invasion. 'This will not stand', the pin said and so did Michael if asked.  He, of Eastern European ancestry and longstanding suspicion of Russian intent, saw Kyiv as the Maginot line - breeching it would be tantamount to complete Russian hegemony 

 

The war in Ukraine has been fought over matters of principle. From a Russian perspective it is the aggressive eastward expansion of NATO and Ukraine’s accession to it, recovery of historically Russian territory, the restoration of Empire and the greatness of the Tsars, a rejection of Western concepts of national sovereignty and an Israeli-like concern for preserving it, among others.

Ukraine and its Western supporters contend they are fighting to preserve their ideas of sovereignty and territorial integrity, the higher good of democracy and its rightful place in the commonwealth of nations,  and a progressive belief in internationally-mediated peace.

Of course there are those who argue that the Russian invasion is nothing more than Putin’s monomaniacal land grab. He is the bully on the block’s pushing and shoving because he can, a ruthless autocrat who wishes to extend Russian hegemony for its own sake and assure his place in history along with Nicholas and Alexander.

 

And there are those who see American support for Zelensky as a a money-maker for the American arms industry, a reaction to a perennial, deep-seated fear of Russia, and the manipulation of Ukraine as a useful tool for consolidating American influence in the region.

All of which contains at least some truth; but this is one war which should never have been fought.  Russian might, economic power, and authoritarian rule assured victory, and Western support of Ukraine and the Zelensky regime simply contributed to tens of thousands of deaths and the ultimate destruction of the country.  In the end, America's war of principle would gain it nothing, and increasingly disaffected taxpayers saw billions of dollars flow down a rathole with no accountability and with no objectifiable goal in sight. 

Ukraine and its Western supporters should have seen the inevitable outcome of the conflict from the very beginning and should have made the best deal possible - a granting of at least partial Russian sovereignty over Donbas, an ethnically Russian region of Ukraine whose residents would be quite happy to be reunited with the Motherland; a Ukrainian vow to withdraw any intentions of joining NATO, and a geopolitical-economic understanding between the two nations guaranteed to increase the prosperity of both. 

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the EU and its North American partners sought to isolate the newly vulnerable Russia, and despite promising to restrain NATO's hegemonic ambitions did just the opposite. Its threats to establish Crimea as a naval base for Western troops was another brazen insult to Russia which feared being encircled and needed a warm water port. 

Ukraine did not start the war - Russia was the invader - but the provocatory indirect policy decisions taken by Ukraine in consort with the West most definitely led to war.  Zelensky had everything to gain -  consolidation of his political power, untold millions of euros and dollars poured into his coffers, international prominence, and enough money in his bank account to flee to the south of France like the Haitian dictator Duvaliers when their time had come. 

Enter Donald Trump and the return of a Machiavellian, Kissinger realpolitik.  Wars should be fought only if there is a clear, definable, objective national interest; and that the laws of imperial hegemony, the unwritten rules of history, will always be in force. 

China and Russia are world powers, and the world is now divided into three equal, countervailing centers.  Productive, competitive, but accommodating relationships among Beijing, Moscow, and Washington are the foundation for the new world order.  As much as exceptionalist America would like to think that its democracy is the ideal model for governance and that it has a moral duty to promote it and to stop autocracy, central planning, and limitation of presumed freedoms, it is now, under Trump, realizing that such moralism will get it nowhere. 

Wary partnership, assuring all three countries with a fair share of world resources, wealth, and geopolitical influence, is the only way forward.  Trump has already begun talks with Russia, will hopefully conclude a long overdue deal with Ukraine for priority access to its valuable, indispensable rare earths, and will regard China as a worthy adversary with unlimited potential, unimaginable economic and financial influence, and an unshakeable government. 

Ukraine was never in America's national interest - a small, poorly run, often corrupt country with arrogant geopolitical ambitions - and using it as a surrogate, a bastion of democracy - enabled thousands of Ukrainian boys to die and keep America distant.  Now America is in a position to get something real out of it all - rare earths - and as long as Zelensky stays quiet, he can remain in power and feather his nest. He will get over Trump’s Oval Office slap and realize that his bank accounts are worth more than losing a little face.

Meanwhile Trump is playing big boy politics and intends to assure parity among the three world powers. 

Machiavelli and Kissinger would be delighted.  In fact Kissinger advocated for this solution before he died. As cited in the political journal The National Interest Kissinger was consistent in his realpolitik:

Henry Kissinger provoked outrage in Kyiv and some Western quarters for having suggested ...that resolving the conflict over Ukraine may involve territorial adjustments. Earlier in his remarks, he had stated the basis for his assessment: “the outcome of that war, both in the military and political sense, will affect relations between groupings of countries […]. [T]he outcome of any war and the peace settlement, and the nature of that peace settlement, […] will determine whether the combatants remain permanent adversaries, or whether it is possible to fit them into an international framework.”

This way of thinking is consistent with Kissinger’s longstanding affirmation of a correlation between extended periods of stability and a common commitment to the legitimacy of an international system based on maintaining a balance of power between major powers.

The common feature of periods in which balance of power politics predominate, he wrote in 1994, is the “elevation of a fact of life—the existence of a number of states of substantially equal strength—into a guiding principle of [international] order.” Put differently, a balance of power system is predicated on a common acknowledgment of relative weakness, whereby each major power concedes it cannot dominate others without incurring heavy costs and thus concludes that it is better off not trying to do so.

 

Too late to prevent war, it is time to end it; and doing so within the context of clear national interest is the only way to do so.  'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer', said Chinese historian and philosopher Sun Tzu; and Donald Trump understands this implicitly.