Trump Wants NATO To Put Money Where Its Mouth Is

Most Europeans, and particularly blinded by the mainstream media, adhere to some very simplistic narratives which suggest that the Russia-Ukraine war is unjust and Russia is culpable for it.

Too many of them are unversed about the geo-political dimensions of the war especially as it relates to the liquidation of the Cold War and the emergence of a unipolar world, pursuant to the collapse of the USSR.

Critical historians (contemporary and future) will certainly reassess the wide range of perspectives from a geo-political perspective. For now, it has, in its arrogance, declared the West as the winner. In fact, even in the new economic arena, there is a First World and a Third World with the expression “Global South” confined to being a euphemism.

The United States of America remains rich and, hence, powerful. Or so it seems, thanks to the propagandist western media propping up the narrative. Discerning intellectuals, academics, and the alternative media, which is quickly gaining in momentum, has shaped new perspectives and alternatives.

The old order is changing. China has made gigantic strides and is a super power in its own right. It has overrun markets using its biggest asset- human resources and skills. It is also a formidable military entity and, unlike the USA, is subtle about that dimension of clout. The US and Europe are, by contrast, shrinking.

US President-elect Trump has indicated he will end America’s military and financial support for Ukraine from current levels. He demands that NATO and allies in Europe fill the deficits. Has this assertion sent Europe into a tizzy? Indeed! Every day of the war in Ukraine costs Russia $500 million to $1 billion. The total projected cost of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine is now at around $486 billion. It is, far and away, Europe’s deadliest since World War II. The human scars are deadly on both sides.

Civilians have borne the brunt of the Ukraine war, with the United Nations reporting at least 11,743 deaths and over 24,600 injuries as of August 2024. Independent and official sources warn the accurate toll is far higher given the fact that access to areas under Russian control. Soldiers account for the majority of the dead, casualties mounting as two modern armies engage in bloody, large-scale warfare.

Military losses are state secrets, but Western intelligence believes Russia has suffered far higher casualties, at times losing over 1,000 soldiers a day. Ukraine’s smaller population leaves it susceptible to human capital. Ukraine’s energy infrastructure has suffered repeated attacks, straining its capacity to meet civilian and industrial needs.

Meanwhile, the disruption of Ukraine’s grain exports early in the war exacerbated global food insecurity, though exports have since partially recovered. Defense now consumes 26% of Ukraine’s GDP, with daily military operations costing $140 million. Ukraine depends on Western financial aid, exceeding $100 billion to date, to sustain its economy and fund social services.

For Russia, the war’s economic impact includes international sanctions, reduced exports, and mounting military costs, though Moscow continues to fund its military efforts. Every day of the war in Ukraine costs Russia $500 million to $1 billion. As of September 2022, military costs reached $40 billion; full-year 2022 gross domestic product losses amounted to between $81 billion and $104 billion, and direct military spending may amount to $132 billion through 2024. As of September 2022, military costs reached $40 billion; full-year 2022 gross domestic product losses amounted to between $81 billion and $104 billion, and direct military spending may amount to $132 billion through 2024.

This backdrop alone suffices for any country to feel appalling. With Trump saying what he did, which is, for certain, what he meant, European powers have made their estimations they have made, they know that war is easy talk and hard on the battle ground. He cautioned that the rate at which Ukraine was being mutilated on the field on a daily basis was not the kind of sustainability Europe could sustain.

The EU has paid lip service until now. And when Trump wants them to pay bills, and send more feet on-the-ground, the game will be far more perilous.

A tough war in tough terrain can only be fought out by well trained, well equipped armed and motivated services. Europe cannot claim to be even close-up to this. Sitting securely under the protective umbrella of NATO whose bills are largely paid by the Americans will not hold water any longer. War requires able and courageous women and men fighting in unison to challenge the opponent. Europe’s unpreparedness is more than exposed.

Trump's message is not just about a quick cease fire. So the Europeans/NATO throng must hope, pray, and do just anything to pave the way for a cease fire and viable steps to sustain it. Fear and cowardice, willingness to loosen their purse strings, and being on the frontlines should the cease fire be violated involves a minimum level of war preparedness that suits the juncture.

With Trump breathing down the necks of the Western allies and Biden miscalculations of the Ukraine war, something must give. Ukraine has got used to oiling its war machinery with free lunches paid for by America. The German Chancellor said he would not fight with hands tied to his back. It would be worthwhile what his propositions for peace were all these months while war was raging.

Trump has raged at the fact that days after his election, Biden gave Ukraine 65 billion dollars. Trump categorized Ukraine as one of the most corrupt countries. He was truly irate because this was money given in cash. This mode of transferring mighty amounts of military aid in hard cash begs the question: Are these deals dubious?

Biden finding a role for himself for the rest of his term may have chosen to play Santa Claus. After all, the Military-Industrial-Complex is a mode to corrupt in its inner working mechanisms. It thrives on profits in which heavy bribes are always factored in. And Ukraine easily ranks as one of the most corrupt countries.

Did the West push Russia into the war? By ignoring Russia in the construction of a global security, the West failed. In 2017, the world transitioned into multi-polarity and abandoned the unipolar world.

The war in Ukraine is a vestige of western hegemony and refusal to include Russia as an equal and trusted partner. What purpose does it serve to keep the rivalry when all that it can produce is wars? The Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is easily the force behind this political maneuvering. And good political actions could have trumped the ascendancy of the MIC.

We need to see the Ukraine War as the failure of the West to abandon unipolarity and bring it from the top, down, and even through the roof. As far back as 2017, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials.

In the 1990s, Clinton wanted to move eastward. Many of his staff was opposed thinking they saw this counterproductive. But in 1999, more countries joined NATO including Poland and Hungary and Czech Republic. In 2004, they were joined by the Baltic States, Bulgaria, Slovekia, Romania, and Slovenia.

In April 2008, Georgia and Ukraine were also added on. To the last two, Putin said a firm NO. At the NATO summit Angela Merkel and France opposed Ukraine because it could be perceived as a declaration of war; a red line crossed.

The annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation took place in 2014 in the aftermath of the Ukrainian Revolution. Why did Russia annex Crimea? Why is Crimea important for Russia? How is the Crimean annexation by Russia related to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war?

A referendum was held in Crimea in which the majority of people expressed their will to become a part of the Russian Federation. One of the major arguments forwarded by the Russian government was that most of the people in the Crimean peninsula are of Russian origin and they expressed a desire to be part of the Russian Federation.

Nearly 60% of the Crimean population is of Russian origin. Access to the Crimean peninsula would provide Russia access to the sea which would facilitate round-the-clock trade and commerce. Further, there was a growing apprehension that NATO was trying to expand its area of influence in Eastern Europe.

This was seen by the Russian government as a symbol of threat from a strategic point of view. At the time of annexation of Crimea, Ukraine was not part of NATO; hence NATO countries could not take military action against Russia, which provided an additional advantage to Russia. There was also a suspicion within Russia that Ukraine is getting closer to the western European countries, which in the long run could make it difficult for Russia to gain control over the seas for trade purposes.

Moreover, control over Crimea gives Moscow continuing access to the naval base at Sevastopol, home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. The Black Sea occupies a very important place for Russia in defending its territory. It is capable of providing oversight capability to Russia. When Clinton became President, his intention was to integrate NATO and EU and detach Ukraine from Russia. Ukraine would then serve as a bulwark against Western Europe.

In fact the ‘Orange revolution’ was claimed as a way to bring democracy into Ukraine and other places to make everyone pro American. This is the political mode of US foreign interventions. US topple regions and pretend democracy

In Bucharest 2008, Ukraine and Georgia were being recruited to join the EU and NATO. That was a direct threat and Russia fought that fiercely leaving Georgia clobbered. In Nov 2013, Ukranian President Viktor Yanukovych was in the process of negotiating with the EU.

In the same month, November 2013, Yanukovych made a sudden decision, to withdraw from signing an association agreement with the EU and instead accepted a Russian trade deal and loan bailout. This sparked mass protests against him that ultimately led to his ousting as president.

It must be remembered that Crimea was never Ukraine’s. The Russian speakers are the majority in many parts. There is now an agreement between Ukraine and Russia since December 2019 when they agreed to implement a "full and comprehensive ceasefire." The agreement followed prisoner swaps and the withdrawal of the Ukrainian military in three areas. The two sides agreed to swap the remaining prisoners and disengage military forces in three additional regions. Subsequently, this fell through. Russia wants a neutral Ukraine functioning as a buffer State.

The only solution is to shut the war. The US plan proposes a ceasefire on the current front lines, forcing both Russia and Ukraine into peace talks, and continued arms supplies to Ukraine if it agrees to a ceasefire and peace talks. If Russia did not agree to a ceasefire and peace talks, the United States would increase arms supplies to Ukraine. Russia is not averse to the formula.

Trump’s camp is floating proposals to end the Ukraine war that would cede large parts of the country to Russia for the foreseeable future. The proposals by three key advisers, including Trump's incoming Russia-Ukraine envoy, retired Army Lieutenant-General Keith Kellogg, share some elements, including taking NATO membership for Ukraine off the table.

Trump's advisers would try forcing Moscow and Kyiv into negotiations with carrots and sticks, including halting military aid to Kyiv unless it agrees to talk but boosting assistance if Russian President Vladimir Putin refuses. Trump repeatedly pledged during his election campaign to end the nearly three-year-old conflict within 24 hours of his Jan. 20 inauguration, if not before then, but has yet to say precisely how.

One option might be a bold plan to freeze the conflict and end Russia’s invasion. But is it a viable path to peace, or an appeasement that risks sacrificing European security? The proposed strategy, involving an 800-mile buffer zone and a two-decade freeze on Ukraine's NATO ambitions, is stirring strong reactions across the globe.

The final solution may lie somewhere in between. It should find consensus but not intervention by the Europeans who are, by and large, Russo-phobic from decades of the Cold War. It might be key to recalling the experience of World War II when the three great Allied powers—Great Britain, the United States, and the then Soviet Union --formed a Grand Alliance that was the key to victory. But the alliance partners did not share common political aims, and did not always agree on how the war should be fought.

Such reconciliation should actually serve as an opportunity to wage a peaceful war on inequality.

It is a lopsided world. And conflict- whether in the form of ethnicity, language, or religion stems from prejudice and discrimination. It demands leaders swallowing their egotism, and developing an irrevocable commitment to justice agreed upon once and for all.

The global community must live as one people united against conflict, prepared to dialogue around divergence in relationships and in celebrating multiple cultures the varieties that comprise this world.

Ranjan Solomon is a writer and human rights activist. Views expressed are the writer’s own.