Trump sabotages his own idea for lasting peace in Ukraine - Lee Hockstader (The Washington Post)

Trump sabotages his own idea for lasting peace in Ukraine

If this is the president’s art of the deal, it’s artless — and extremely unlikely to work.
Lee Hockstader
The Washington Post, January 30, 2025
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/01/30/trump-ukraine-europe-musk-troops-war/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=wp_opinions

BERLIN — Winston Churchill is said to have quipped that all he needed to ensure Europe’s defense was one American soldier, “preferably dead.”
Donald Trump would be unpersuaded.
The president is reluctant to send more aid to Ukraine, let alone U.S. troops; nor does he want Ukraine admitted to NATO. As for overseeing an eventual ceasefire and guaranteeing Ukraine’s security — without which an armistice would be meaningless, given Moscow’s neo-imperialist ambitions — he sees that as Europe’s problem.
Fair enough: Many Europeans regard Russia’s war in Ukraine as an existential threat; far fewer Americans do. So it made sense when, according to the Wall Street Journal, Trump suggested European boots on the ground in Ukraine, once a ceasefire is agreed upon, to protect Ukrainian sovereignty by deterring future Russian attacks.
But Trump might be sabotaging his own goal of ending a cataclysmal war now nearing its third anniversary: “He doesn’t connect the dots,” Jan Techau, a German security analyst, told me.
Trump is rightly pushing Europeans to boost spending on their militaries and take far more responsibility for their own security. But what he’s demanding now goes much further. Persuading Europeans to risk direct confrontation with Russian forces would be the biggest ask a U.S. president has made of America’s allies in living memory.
How big? Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says at least 200,000 European soldiers, in addition to Kyiv’s own forces, would be necessary to deter future Russian attacks. That would be almost an impossibly large force for Europe to muster, at least now. Even low-end estimates — 40,000 to 50,000 European ground troops — would severely strain countries, including Britain, whose forces have dwindled to or near historic lows.
Many Europeans would be reluctant to send troops into Ukrainian territory. But what’s the choice if the goal is to deter further Russian attacks?
Washington and key allies, including Germany, oppose granting Ukraine NATO membership. U.N. peacekeepers could be deployed only with the agreement of Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, and no one seriously expects President Vladimir Putin to sign off on blue helmets in Ukraine that would face down his own forces. Besides, U.N. forces elsewhere have a long track record of failing to keep peace (see: Lebanon).
European officials have started talks on mustering a force to protect Ukraine. It could involve some combination of British, French, Dutch, Nordic and Baltic troops, among others.
A crucial precondition would be muscular U.S. backup, perhaps based in Poland, providing what military types call “C4ISR” — command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.
Put simply, Europe cannot halt the war in Ukraine on its own. And the United States can’t successfully end it without European troops. Cooperation and codependence are the key — if or when a negotiated ceasefire is achieved.
Plenty of obstacles to a European force would present themselves, not least the certainty that Putin would vehemently object, painting it as an advance of NATO troops toward Russia’s borders.
But instead of encouraging European allies and signaling that Washington will have their back, Trump is targeting them with aggression and abuse. That has left Europe reeling just days into his presidency.
If that’s the art of the deal, it’s artless. And it’s extremely unlikely to work.
The issue is not just the threat of tariffs on European goods, though those would sap nations already struggling with anemic economies (Britain) and unsustainable debt (France) even as they would struggle to afford a hugely expensive deployment.
Nor is it only Trump’s snarling over Greenland, which he wants to wrest away from Denmark, although his bullying has shaken NATO allies.
It’s also the brazen interference and contempt for key allies by Elon Musk, who is understandably regarded by European officials as a Trump proxy.
Musk has been loudly promoting radical European political parties that would be most opposed to any force that would safeguard a ceasefire and protect Ukraine. In both Britain and Germany, he has thrown his support behind Russia-sympathizer parties — Reform UK and Alternative for Germany.
Would anyone blame French officials for concluding that Musk would also back France’s populist party National Rally, which, with its own history of swooning over Putin, would be very unlikely to back a European force to deter Russian aggression?
Of course, Trump does have another option. Instead of seeking a negotiated ceasefire safeguarded by European forces, he could simply abandon Ukraine by cutting off military aid.
But that could make Ukraine Trump’s Afghanistan, multiplying the carnage, chaos and refugees. It would signal to China and other adversaries that Washington is weak. It could even prompt U.S. allies, fearing Washington has washed its hands of Europe’s security, to develop their own nuclear arms programs. If you think Europe is unstable now, think of Poland or Turkey with nukes — or Germany.
Trump was smart to push Europe to step up. We’ll see if he’s smart enough to stop undercutting his own idea.