Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
In November 1940, Winston Churchill sent a notable telegram to Franklin Roosevelt, expressing his relief over Roosevelt’s re-election and the successful adoption of an anti-appeasement policy. Churchill emphasized the historical significance of the moment, stating that the events unfolding would be remembered for generations. He shared his confidence that the principles guiding them would ultimately lead to a safe resolution.
Fast forward to the present, as UK Labour leader Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron prepare to meet with a very different US president. The current political atmosphere reminds one of historical tumult; however, the guiding lights seem obscured in a tumultuous world.
In his influential Arsenal of Democracy address, Roosevelt rebuffed requests to push the US towards a forced peace, highlighting the underlying horrors of Nazi Germany’s regime despite its masquerade of virtue.
Contrasting this, Donald Trump appears to embrace the idea of a US-imposed peace, viewing Russia without acknowledgment of its oppressive tactics.
Starmer fears that the alliance that emerged from World War II may be fracturing. The notion that such a disintegration is now not just conceivable, but likely, is echoed by Macron, warning that the worst is indeed a possibility.
As the fundamental principles of the postwar order falter, Britain’s role as a bridge to Europe for the US looks increasingly precarious. France and the UK find themselves appealing to Trump to remember America’s pivotal role as a bastion of freedom in Europe’s history.
Margaret MacMillan, an expert in international history, articulated concerns over Trump’s unpredictability in foreign policy. She stressed the danger of individuals wielding immense power without accountability or coherent strategies, suggesting Trump’s decisions are often driven by impulse rather than calculated thought.
There are rising anxieties in Europe that Trump might withdraw US military aid to Ukraine, framing the conflict as a senseless stalemate rather than a struggle against aggression. The worry is that such rhetoric may lead to an unfavorable shift in allegiance.
In response to Trump’s provocative claims, European leaders, such as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, have firmly rejected his narrative, labeling it a distortion of reality fraught with peril.
The European countries have also turned their focus on convincing rational voices within the US to steer Trump away from policies that could be detrimental. However, the political landscape has skewed in a way that challenges dissenting Republican leaders, making it difficult for them to voice opposition.
Trump’s cabinet selections appear to prioritize loyalty over expertise, reducing the avenues through which foreign counterparts might influence US policy.
H R McMaster, a former national security adviser, stressed that a nuanced approach would be necessary to engage effectively with Trump, emphasizing that recognizing his contrarian nature could unlock potential avenues of negotiation.
Former UK ambassador to the US, Kim Darroch, suggested that Macron and Starmer should steer conversations towards practical measures to amplify pressure on Putin, focusing on specifics that demand Trump’s attention.
Alexander Stubb, the president of Finland, remarked on the need to impress upon the US the larger stakes involved, framing Ukraine’s future as pivotal not only for its sovereignty but for the security of Europe and the international order.
Macron and Starmer are aware of the need to bolster Europe’s position, particularly as they navigate a political landscape where Europe risks being sidelined in significant negotiations with Russia and the US.
At a recent summit in Paris, Macron sought to assert European relevance in security talks, signaling that Europe should not just be part of the conversation but also play a critical role in stability efforts.
The discussion centered around the prospect of Europe deploying peacekeeping forces within Ukraine, contingent upon US logistical support, a move that emphasizes the interconnectedness of security responsibilities.
However, the summit did not unfold smoothly. Key leaders left early, citing the need for US backing, and expressions of skepticism arose from several quarters.
Starmer took a calculated step forward by suggesting British troop contributions, conditioned on US support, reflecting a bold stance that also highlighted concerns about morale within the Ukrainian ranks amid Trump’s remarks.
Western officials conveyed that for European ground forces to operate effectively, air support would be essential, thus underscoring the integration required between US and European military capabilities.
The potential European presence in Ukraine could serve both to foster confidence amongst Ukrainian forces and encourage a return of expatriates to support their homeland.
As discussions evolve, engaging Trump will involve carefully crafted persuasion, especially addressing his resistance to a US backstop for European initiatives while clarifying expectations for a resolution in Ukraine.
However, Trump’s derogatory remarks about Ukrainian President Zelenskyy raise concerns about America’s positioning in ongoing negotiations, effectively framing Ukraine as the aggressor in a narrative that undermines its sovereignty.
Such shifts in rhetoric illustrate how Trump’s animosities can transform into policy decisions, impacting international negotiations significantly.
As noted by Richard Haass from the Council on Foreign Relations, the once-consensus approach of treating Putin as a pariah appears to be waning, complicating the landscape for US foreign policy.
The UK’s longstanding opposition to Russian encroachment has been foundational to its foreign policy principles. Recent evaluations have reiterated Russia’s persistent threat to UK security.
Echoing caution from years past, Jonathan Powell warned of the dangers of estrangement from the US without a robust engagement in Europe.
Fifteen years later, this strategic approach faces severe challenges. With Brexit reshaping alliances, the UK must navigate the tension of adhering to traditional beliefs regarding Russia while reassessing its stance in response to shifting US strategies.
Source
www.theguardian.com