History does not reflect well on Neville Chamberlain the British Prime Minister who served from May 1937 until October 1940. His legacy in government is defined by the appeasement policy that he followed when Nazi Germany invaded the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia.
Chamberlain facilitated the Munich Agreement on 30 September 1938, which ceded this territory to Germany. One year later Germany would go on to invade Poland which would see the United Kingdom go to war. Chamberlain resigned a few months later on 10 May 1940.
It’s important to call Donald Trump’s policy approach to Russia exactly what it is: it is appeasement. Some may consider this an insult, or an unfair description, but that’s what it is.
Trump has fundamentally shifted the foreign policy approach that the United States has followed away from Ukraine and towards Russia. Trump has effectively sought to re-write the history of this conflict, reframing it to blur the lines between who was the aggressor, so much so that European leaders such as Emmanuel Macron have stated explicitly “Russia is the aggressor”.
Much has been said and written about the meltdown of the meeting between Trump, Vladimir Zelensky and JD Vance this past Friday and no doubt that meeting will be analysed in the weeks to come as a defining moment in the Ukrainian war. However, it is worth unpacking exactly what potential scenarios could in fact unfold, depending on the next moves by Europe, Ukraine and the US.
My goal is not to reflect on the tone or style of the discussions that took place. Depending on the media source that you read, Zelensky is a hero fighting for the rights of his people or he is a warmonger who is ungracious and disrespected the American President. I will not seek to engage on these aspects, but merely to look towards discussing the background behind some of the statements made during this meeting.
One of the most significant statements made by Trump during the fiery exchange with Zelensky was “you are gambling with World War Three”. It’s worth unpacking exactly what Trump is hinting at in saying this. Zelensky has been emphasising the need for security guarantees in relation to the mineral deal that Trump wants him to sign, a security backstop.
On the ground
It is a term that European leaders have actively expressed a need for as well. But what exactly is it? Simply put, it is US troops, equipment and logistics on the ground in Ukraine at the frontlines enforcing a ceasefire or being placed in a position where they could actively come into conflict with Russian troops – circumstances that definitely have the potential to risk triggering World War 3, an outcome that Trump simply isn’t entertaining.
Of course, the minerals deal that Trump wants Zelensky to sign will put American assets in the game. American companies and personnel would set up in Ukraine and any further conflict would then directly threaten American economic interests. However, the deal isn’t signed yet and European leaders have urged Zelensky to go back to the US to get it signed. He has said he still intends to do so − but any further engagement with the Trump administration will likely require him to really “bend the knee” this time around.
On the morning before the infamous Friday meeting, Republican leaders had issued calls to Trump to avoid being caught in a trap, this trap likely being a hard commitment for US intervention in Ukraine. Trump of course avoided any such commitment and continues to do so.
It’s worth noting that Zelensky has done an excellent job of rallying his country together and protecting the Ukrainian people in the hardest of circumstances. However, while this has not been said explicitly by him, the ideal scenario for Ukraine is foreign troops from Europe and the US being deployed on the ground.
European leaders have now put together a peace plan which they intend to present to the US to bring about stability in Ukraine. However, it’s important to note that none of the European countries have the military capacity for a large-scale foreign military deployment in Ukraine. It’s in scenarios such as this that the military might of the US is at its strongest because not only is it the most powerful fighting force on the planet but it is also a force, if not the only force, that can maintain the kind of logistics and supply operations for large-scale military operations anywhere in the world.
Underfunding their militaries
Trump has pushed Europe and NATO countries to finally confront the fact that they have been underfunding their militaries for years and they simply cannot meaningfully help Ukraine with its security unless the US is on board.
But is there any scenario in which the US will come on board? This is not clear, and I can understand why: the deployment of US troops to Ukraine has the potential to trigger a massive escalation in the conflict. Trump has indicated repeatedly that he is in contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has instructed his foreign policy teams to stop framing Russia negatively in terms of the conflict.
What deal could they be negotiating, is the next question? Trump has adopted an appeasement strategy. Will that involve ceding the territories occupied by Russian forces to Russia and redrawing the boundaries of Ukraine? Lifting all sanctions? Economic trade deals and investments into Russia? Only time will tell.
However, what if Trump’s approach fails? What if a deal is struck with Russia and they totally renege on it, either pushing further into Ukraine or targeting another European country along their border? This would be a spectacular failure on Trump’s part, which would define his legacy.
[Image: Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe, the national archive of Poland, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=103398845]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend