中文
By William Jones
U.S. President Donald Trump's firm commitment to end the conflict in Ukraine, which he reiterated repeatedly during his presidential campaign, has been particularly unsettling to U.S. allies in Europe, as well as to many establishment figures in the U.S., many of whom wished to continue the conflict until Russia was "defeated."
It is also clear that if the U.S. under a Trump administration abandons its war effort in Ukraine, it could not be continued even with continued support from Europe. But Trump was determined to end the conflict entirely and establish peace in the region.
The recent telephone call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin and the subsequent meeting between top U.S. and Russian officials in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, have set off something of a firestorm in European capitals.
French President Emmanuel Macron called a meeting of the EU nations in Paris on February 17 to discuss the matter, but no consensus was achieved, with many of the European leaders prepared to follow the U.S. lead in moving toward a negotiated solution of the conflict.
With the phone call, the attempt by the West to "isolate" Russia has been effectively thwarted. If European nations were to continue the conflict independently, as had been urged by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, they could risk provoking the wrath of the U.S. president. This mirrors Zelenskyy's own action when he treated U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent rather brusquely during his visit to Kiev on February 12.
Comments by Trump about the need for elections in Ukraine have also raised the question as to whether the U.S. would even consider Zelenskyy a suitable counterpart in peace negotiations. This is particularly relevant given that his presidential term, according to the Ukrainian constitution, has expired, and Ukraine, now under declared martial law, has not held elections to elect a new leader.
While Trump will not completely abandon U.S. global military commitments, he is determined to significantly reduce spending on them and aims to avoid U.S. military involvement in conflict zones that do not directly affect U.S. interests.
Since his reelection, he has said that he would like to see his legacy as president as that of a peacemaker. Yet putting on his hat as a businessman, he also hopes to "retrieve" some of the billions that had been expended on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. He has, therefore, demanded that Ukraine turn over some of its precious raw materials, a deal which Zelenskyy proposed and accepted, and then backed out of when Bessent went to Kiev to seal the deal.
Both the U.S. and Russia are willing to move in the direction of a negotiated settlement; but Zelenskyy may continue to drag his feet if he can maintain European backing. That backing, however, is beginning to wane and Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer will be going to Washington this week probably in a "last ditch" attempt to keep some military presence in Ukraine, possibly under the guise of "peacekeepers."
There are also fears in certain quarters that Trump's draw-down of U.S. troops in Europe could simply imply increased deployments in the Asia-Pacific region, which has clearly become the prime focus of Trump's economic policy.
And there are those in the Trump administration who will never view China as other than a "rival." The rhetoric on this in Congress and in much of the mainstream media is almost interminable. Yet, it is unlikely that Trump would desire any non-peaceful conflict with China as his major means of dealing with this issue is on the economic front, although he views China as a tough "competitor." And yet his flagrant use of tariffs, or threats of tariffs, might also create conditions that can push antagonisms on to a different plane.
William Jones, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a former Washington bureau chief for EIR News Service and a non-resident fellow of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China.
