It's clear that Trump is shaping up to end the war on Russia's terms, something Zelensky himself could have done without American help in March 2022. If so, Snyder argues, that is going to look like weakness and if it fails because Ukraine won't agree (and they won't), it makes the whole situation even worse.
Trump’s only objective is to look competent and strong to his MAGA followers by ending the war quickly and saving money - on whatever terms and regardless of maintaining Ukraine’s 1992 borders. He would, I’m sure, betray Zelensky and his people in a heartbeat. He’s a narcissist. Trump doesn’t care about the American people so I’m sure he wouldn’t lose sleep over Ukraine.
If Trump does force Zelensky into a weaker position, and Ukraine loses the war, that would be catastrophic internationally. By defending the current world order, Ukraine is also deterring China from invading Taiwan by showing how costly and difficult such operations are in money and human life.
If Russia succeeds, it will reward and embolden Putin and also lead to a proliferation of nuclear weapons, Snyder says. If nothing else, the Ukraine war has shown how being a nuclear power is the ultimate defence. Had Ukraine had access to nuclear missiles the war would never have started. A lot of countries will take this as a big lesson - if Russia is allowed to win.
Snyder says:
"Trump is being played as a weakling by people who laugh at him as such. None of this, of course, has to happen. Trump calls himself a dealmaker; he could start acting like one. Instead of announcing that he is in a hurry to seal a deal, thereby giving Putin every incentive to slow things down, he could say that he is working for the best deal.
"Then the logic becomes clear. Getting to yes would involve strengthening Ukraine rather than weakening it, because one bargains from strength, not weakness. If Trump actually wanted to look like a competent negotiator, he would plan to arm Ukraine."
This is true in my opinion. It harks back to the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s after Ronald Reagan announced his 'Star Wars' plan and his declared intention to outspend Russia militarily. Suppose Trump announced the US intended to double or treble support for Ukraine and remove some of the restrictions to allow Ukrainian strikes on military targets on Russian soil. In that case, I think that news alone - without spending an extra dollar - would do more to end the war quickly than anything else.
What we don't know, is how deeply Trump is in Putin's pocket and in the end this might determine Ukraine's fate and ultimately that of Europe itself.
Bank of England governor
Some comments on Europe by Andrew Bailey, BoE governor, in his Mansion House speech to investors got a lot of remainers quite excited. He said that one of its consequences has been weaker trade and he talked of "rebuilding" our relationship with the EU.
Here are his actual words as shown on the BoE website:
"Now, as I have said many times, as a public official I take no position on Brexit per se. That’s important. But I do have to point out consequences. The changing trading relationship with the EU has weighed on the level of potential supply. The impact on trade seems to be more in goods than services, that is not particularly surprising to my mind. But it underlines why we must be alert to and welcome opportunities to rebuild relations while respecting the decision of the British people.
"But, we should not focus just on the effects of Brexit. The picture is now clouded by the impact of geopolitical shocks and the broader fragmentation of the world economy. I will own up to being an old fashioned free trader at heart. It’s a British characteristic I like to think. My point is this: amidst the important need to be alert to threats to economic security, let’s please remember the importance of openness. Openness is an important determinant of productivity. There is nothing new about saying this, just to be clear."
He isn't saying anything the OBR hasn't already said umpteen times. Brexit has impacted trade and quite substantially. Bailey then adds that the 2016 referendum must be respected.
Is this really a game-changer? I don’t think it is. The governor is simply restating the British government’s position since 2016. We want full access to the EU’s single market market while not paying contributions or following the rules. I assume that is what is meant by “respecting the [2016] decision of the British people.”
It’s the same old cakeism that the last five prime ministers have been seeking.
Why keep harping on about it? The EU have never wavered from their original mandate. We got Brexit ‘done’ alright but only by seriously damaging trade with Europe and our own economic growth prospects. There is now an almost constant steady push by various industries and trade groups to cut red tape, help them lower costs, and improve trade.
I return again to the words of Wolfgang Schauble, the German finance minister who has passed away. He said quite clearly in 2016 that "in is in and out is out." Yet here we are eight years later still wandering around in the middle demanding that in should be out and out should be in.
Sooner or later the penny will drop. And with Trump about to destabilise the world order, I think sooner looks more likely.
