Will Trump betray Ukraine and why the new administration’s policies threaten US allies
When Britain and France forced Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in 1938, they believed that doing so would ensure long-term peace. But appeasing a revisionist aggressor had the opposite effect, setting the stage for another world war one year later.
Read more about whether US President Donald Trump can achieve peace between Russia and Ukraine or whether we are witnessing a repeat of the infamous Munich Agreement is the focus of an op-ed by Carl Bildt, former Swedish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister - The great capitulator: how Donald Trump has created a threat to all of Europe.
According to the author, if peace means settling all the issues that now divide Russia and Ukraine, the likelihood of achieving such an outcome is extremely slim. In 1938, Czechoslovakia decided not to fight, because its military prospects were essentially hopeless. But Ukraine’s are not. The chances that it would simply swallow a blatantly unjust and unfair diktat are slim to none.
"But if peace is not possible in the near term, a halt to the fighting and the beginning of a political process to reduce tensions might still be achievable," Bildt suggests.
He recalls that Putin previously made clear that he will not accept a ceasefire that does not result in Russia’s territorial expansion and Ukraine’s political and military submission.
But can Trump really deliver Ukraine to Putin?
Bildt argues that even if Putin resists that temptation and the two men agree on territorial and political terms, it is far from certain that Trump can force Ukraine to accept them.
"In 1938, Czechoslovakia decided not to fight, because its military prospects were essentially hopeless. But Ukraine’s are not. The chances that it would simply swallow a blatantly unjust and unfair diktat are slim to none," the author notes.
The former Swedish prime minister stresses that the stakes for the rest of Europe are also extremely high: if a US president not only refuses to acknowledge a brazen act of aggression, but also forces the victim into submission, much of what NATO stands for risks going up in smoke.
Would the United States still come to the defense of the Baltics or other vulnerable NATO members?
And these risks extend beyond Europe. What will happen to US security guarantees in Asia and other regions?
And the risks are not Europe’s alone. What would become of NATO’s security guarantees and alliances in Asia and elsewhere? If the US is unwilling to defend Ukraine, would it really defend Taiwan?
Critical days lie ahead. A new and powerful source of global instability – the US government – must now be reckoned with.