The traditionally close ties between the US and Europe have defined the Munich Security Conference for decades. Despite some differences, there has always been a solid foundation. Everyone worked well together and respected each other. But since US President Donald Trump has come into office, such certainty has been crumbling. This is why the conference has also acted as an indicator of how good trans-Atlantic relations are. And now it is set to kick off this coming Friday.
One thing is certain: A different wind is now blowing from the United States after the first few weeks of Trump’s second term as US president. “America First” is Trump’s unwavering mantra, even if it comes at the expense of his allies. These tensions are likely to shape some of the debates to be held in the conference rooms of Bayerischer Hof, the prestigious Munich hotel where politicians, military leaders and experts will meet from February 14 to 16.
Sixty heads of state and government are expected to attend the MSC, which is regarded as the world’s most important forum for security policy. From the new US administration, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have confirmed their attendance but not the new US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth. In addition, conference chair Christoph Heusgen has announced that one of the largest delegations from the US Congress ever to attend the MSC is expected. Among the guests is also the new NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte.
The MSC is an informal meeting at which no decisions are made. That is why the event encourages an open exchange of views, and conflicts are not swept under the carpet. And Donald Trump has already set a new, sharper tone in trans-Atlantic relations. “We were being ripped off by European nations both on trade and on NATO,” read a quote by Trump during his election campaign published in the “Munich Security Report” to accompany the conference. He went on to say to Europe: “If you don’t pay, we’re not going to protect you.”
According to Trump, the European NATO partners’ insufficient investment in their armies is a thorn in his side. He has also repeatedly criticized Germany on this topic. Previously, the US has paid the lion’s share of NATO’s costs and offered Europe reliable military protection. Trump now wants this to come with conditions: He is demanding that the allies spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense. Germany is struggling to meet the 2% that is now regarded as a minimum requirement in NATO. Republican Trump has already proven that he can drastically cut US funds from international organizations. According to the “Munich Security Report,” Trump’s camp has also justified this by arguing that even a global power like the US has only limited resources and must use them for the good of its own country. “Indeed, the notion of ‘resource scarcity’ has become a central premise of Republican foreign policy thinking,” the report states.
This could also have a negative impact on aid for Ukraine, where the US had previously led the way. There is certainly no shortage of things to talk about for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Trump’s Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, who are both expected in Munich. In the run-up to the conference, rumors have been circulating that Kellogg could present the Trump administration’s plan for ending the war in Ukraine at the security conference.
In response, conference chairman Heusgen has remained cautious: “We hope that Munich will be utilized, and we also have indications that it will be used to make progress towards peace in Ukraine.” Heusgen expressed the hope that a peace plan could take shape in Munich. The diplomat emphasized, however, that Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty would have to be preserved. Heusgen was previously a foreign policy adviser to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and German ambassador to the United Nations in New York.
However, representatives of the Russian government have again not been invited to the MSC. The prerequisite for an invitation is “a willingness for dialogue,” stressed Heusgen, “and as long as President Putin does not recognize the government in Kyiv or Zelenskyy, I do not think that such a dialogue is possible.” Representatives of the Russian opposition and nongovernmental organizations, however, are welcome in Munich.
https://www.dw.com/en/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-war-nato-global-security-v2/a-71565151
Comment: Trump has blown both ways since he’s been in office. First he continued the military aid to Ukraine even while stopping the USAID support (which was substantial) while continuing the stronger sanctions on Russian oil and gas implemented by Biden in his waning days in office. He also talked of even stronger sanctions. And then, yesterday, he seemed to be more supportive of Russian objectives. Taking NATO membership for Ukraine off the table is really no big deal. NATO has refused membership to Ukraine for thirty years. No US troops as peacekeepers is also nothing new. I never saw that happening. Even the wild statement that Russia fighting hard for the captured territories and losing a lot of people in the process somehow entitles them to those captured territories isn’t that far from just recognizing reality. Unless Putin’s government totally collapses, withdrawing from all territory previously captured is not realistic.
But Trump is in a dilemma. He promised to end the war quickly. He may even truly be concerned about the continuing death and destruction. He can totally back out of US support of Ukraine including refusing to enforce sanctions. That will put Ukraine in a truly hard place, but it is no guarantee that the fighting will stop. With the US out of the picture, Russia will be emboldened to continue to what they conceive as ultimate victory. Ukraine will continue to resist and much of NATO will continue to support Ukraine in this struggle. Trump’s promise will prove empty. To avoid appearing ineffective, he may find it necessary to stay engaged, even if it’s just to continue and increase the sanctions. Besides, the sanction on Russian oil and gas flow into his promise to make this country the leading exporter of oil and gas to the world.
What comes out of this meeting of the Munich Security Conference should give us a better insight into what the future holds… or not.
TTG
Has Trump proposed even one minor concession from Putin?
I think the terms for ending the war are entirely reasonable.
Just accept them and move on.
And stop supporting Ukraine.
Correction: “terms Putin has offered”.
Al,
It’s like you guys just can’t recognize patterns of behavior and learn. Sad.
Entrenched government/progressive types – “OMG! Trump is crazy and evil. He wants to turn Gaza into a giant Mar a Lago.!!!! Ahhhhh!”
Reality -Within a week, the Saudis, Egyptians and UAE are falling all over each other trying to be first to submit a viable Arab plan for the future of Gaza. And I guarantee it will be a good plan that brings peace to that area and a better life for the residents of Gaza.
And on and on, with each issue, the same pattern and same results. Trump tosses out a wild vision to of what he/the US wants and within a week or so all of the stakeholders/impacted parties come back with a viable alternative that gets Trump/the US what it needs. His thick skulled domestic critics and the corrupt screaming defeatism all the while.
More reality checks – the Mexican govt just voted to allow US military forces into Mexico and 7th Group is spearheading the effort against cartels with a train and assist mission.
Greenland talking to the US about a deal just a little shy of becoming a US territory.
India talking the US about becoming an alternative to China in exchange for favorable tariff arrangements.
Several more examples of the effectiveness of Trump’s method working and working fast are developing. But, by all means, sit around griping and moaning about the US becoming wealthier, more secure and less corrupt.
Sounds like he’s playing both sides to get the best deal. Zelenskyy should bribe Trump with exclusive hotel rights, a little parcel of land and a stake in mineral extraction.
Trump doesn’t care. It’s all being handed off to western Europe with no bow on it. It’s not his war or problem and absolutely not the war or problem those that voted for him ever wanted.
The best outcome is western Europe gets back to defending their own turf and working with all neighbors. It won’t be easy. Much of the staunch socialism will have to be scaled down for defense. Maybe they start breeding again and close the front gates to all the freeloaders they allowed in that were never going to gel into society or become wage slaves for them. Hard lesson to learn but they all learned it; never rely on another country for decades to defend your country. Empire don’t do that. They conquer and subjugate.
Babelthuap,
Correct. There are maybe 20,000 people in the US who truly give a sh*t about Ukraine and 10,000 of them are receiving monetary kickbacks, or marching orders from those getting kickbacks; and the rest are lost in some ideological fog from a by gone era. It’s really not even Europe’s problem, but if they want to pretend it is, then let them deal with it.
Trump, and the bulk of the US, is America first, not slava this or that first. Ukraine might as well be the dark side of the moon. We have issues to deal with at home and no more money to waste on lost causes. That said, if we can get some valuable minerals out of the deal, then good. If we don’t, well, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
“Trump has blown both ways since he’s been in office” – yeah. You try a little of this and a little of that and observe the reaction. Like recon by fire. If an opportunity opens up, go for it. If not, re-assess. I think that is smarter than trying to force a belligerent course of action and damn the torpedos, though I realize that is the US way too often. Those days of stupid are over.
Vance today said that if Russia refuses to deal he won’t rule out US troops on the ground in Ikraine. Now they are talking WW3. Looks more like the shotgun effect to me. Fire and see what sticks.
Vance is talking BS now as he tries to back away from the surrender scheme Trump and Putin are playing
Zelensky commands the Ukrainian armed forces. He’s the one who invoked martial law, cancelled elections, and jailed all political opposition after labeling them pro Russian.
Good luck with seeing if actual Americans give a damn about yet another foreign war they have to pay for so the Borg can keep power and $ flows.
I’m sure most of the people who want to fight Russia could go to Ukraine and actually fight Russia, if it means that much to them.
The rest of us are interested in focusing on saving our own country.
One of the things I have learned recently is that the “IJ”, which you will see in front of the placename Muiden at the enormous sea gate lock complex at the entrance to the North Sea canal that runs some sixteen miles to Amsterdam–well, this is the formal name of the whole extensive bay area that forms the waterfront of the city. It seems to be pronounced “Hey”, once meant in West Frisian ‘water’, and the bay near the city formed by putting a thirty-plus mile dyke across the mouth of a North Sea ocean inlet in 1932, which was once so memorably called the Zuiderzee, is now called the IJsselmeer. Separated from the city to the west by the Oranje lock, the North Sea canal runs to its muiden, or mouth, and the town there is called IJmuiden. The amazing thing to me is that it is all FRESH WATER, the drinking water of the more than two million people of the Amsterdam region. Every time the 2900 ton lock door of the seagate schleuse at IJmuiden is opened, some 630,000 liters of sea water comes into the lock chamber. Should nothing be done about this salt water influx when the lock is opened again on the other side to let the ship through into the canal, then the canal would soon become brackish and not only undrinkable but impossible to be used in agriculture, as it is now. One of the largest water pumps in the world is operational near IJmuiden, with capabilities of moving more than 30,000 gallons a second. There is also a surprising way to separate salt from fresh water; the salt water being heavier, it will flow down through a screen. This is the only canal I know of so connected to the ocean that supplies an important part of a region’s drinking water; though there is the C&O canal in Richmond, which brings river water to the waterworks for treatment.
If the seagate lock at IJmuiden were blasted open, or even jammed shut, you would have a catastrophe rapidly developing in Holland. If the Oranje lock were destroyed and the IJmuiden lockdoor was also blown open, then you would have the North Sea flooding much of the rich agricultural region all along the canal and up to and in and around Amsterdam. The city is slightly below sea level. Agriculture would be ruined in the polderlands, there would be a drinking water emergency for several million people, which could include sewerage, transportation in the city motorway tunnels, the question of maintaining the basic essentials of life including perhaps even electric power.
Almost immediately after taking the position, the new NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, flew to Kiev and gave a speech in which he called for deep strikes into Russia. The response from the Kremlin was that any deep strikes from NATO proxies would be met with deep strikes of their own. Areas deep in the West that had been assumed to be off limits and having a kind of immunity (protected by the threat of a potential American nuclear response, something that can no longer be assumed) have in the last six months suddenly started to look like possible targets. I simply do not see how the leadership of NATO can be so bold. An attack on the North Sea Canal could take the Netherlands out of the war on the first day.
As Trump said the other day about Ukrainians.
“They may some day be Russians or they may not be Russians someday.”
He doesn’t care either way. Trump’s policy is America (and Israel) first.
He cares about Panama, Greenland, Canada, making money, and keeping the US as the world’s undisputed hegemon.
As for Europe, Nuland said it best, “Fuck the EU”. Trump will simply offload the problem to the them.
European politicians should grow up and take responsibility for their security, economy and sovereignty. Had they done that a decade ago this whole carnage could have been avoided.
I’m just amazed by how President Trump has handled it all. Still working out how he did it. But he’s done it, that’s for sure. America, the failing giant as was, the failing giant we have watched going downhill for so many years, is back on course!
Ukraine is the marker. Since the inauguration the question’s been, is Trump going to take over Biden’s war there and make it his own? Or is he going to take America clear?
I didn’t think he would or even could do the latter. Once bitten twice shy and given Trump’s failure to get shot of the neocons in his first term I, like most Europeans, thought we were in for what would have been, as far as US foreign policy went, little more than a Biden second term but with different PR.
I’ve never been so pleased to be wrong. The answer is now unequivocal. He’s taken the United States clear.
It’s not a time for unthinking celebration. That unnecessary war is still claiming its victims and will for a while yet. The tragedy of what we have done to Ukraine will remain a tragedy for ever. The blowback in Europe, my own country particularly, will be severe. But it’s the start of the road back to recovery for the West.
Well, your corner of the West anyway, TTG. Still a few bits and pieces to tidy up in Europe.
EO,
“I’m just amazed by how President Trump has handled it all. Still working out how he did it. But he’s done it, that’s for sure. America, the failing giant as was, the failing giant we have watched going downhill for so many years, is back on course!”
Sorry to say, I’m also amazed by how delusional many MAGAs think like your assessment above. Unless you were being sarcastic above. US soft power has been nearly destroyed by Trump in less than a month.
TonyL,
You mean all those people bribed with USAID $ won’t stay bribed? They’ll be “pro-China” or pro-whomever depending upon who pays them? Yeah. That’s my read too. No more extortion to a bunch of 3rd worlders who hold us in contempt. Let them generate some graft elsewhere.
Fred,
Simply put, USAID as an aid program is good, and as a regime change instrument is bad. But that’s not what I meant by soft power.
Do you think Trump’s bull-in-china-shop foreign policy is even a policy? Trump is wrecking US relationships with allies and friends just to show off his newly acquired power.
TonyL – one of the things that’s always made this site special, in Colonel Lang’s time and now that TTG’s hosting it, is that opposing views can be set out and discussed without everyone scratching the other’s eyes out.
Never more so than with Ukraine. It’s clear that some believe we’re fighting, or supporting, a just war in Ukraine. Some disagree. Is that disagreement ever going to be resolved?
Doubt it. And I’d guess that for every man or woman in the West who believes the Russian invasion of Ukraine was “provoked” there are tens of thousands who believe it was “unprovoked”. My “FAFO war” is your war to avert the “Russia threat” and you’re in the majority. Heavily so.
But neither side of that argument can ignore military reality. This war was a lost war from 21st February 2022 on. At the latest from the loss of the sanctions war. The West does not have the military or economic resources to force the win in Ukraine you want. We can argue about the rights and wrongs of this war till the cows come home but no amount of argument can alter that.
One of the few times, the only one I think, when I’ve been personally affected by something said on the internet was when Colonel Lang, with whom I’d had very little direct communication, met a comment of mine with “Welcome back”. For me that was “Welcome back home” from a man on his sickbed and I was deeply touched.
I’d been banned, but had nevertheless ventured a comment to Turcopolier that TTG and the Colonel accepted. I had argued that Lee’s decision to surrender was the correct one. That there comes a time when military reality has to be faced and defeat has to be accepted. If it’s not, then useless slaughter results from which victory cannot be expected. That’s a bitter decision that often has to be made in war and I argued it was time to make that decision in Ukraine.
Trump may be closer to your views on the rights and wrongs of the Ukrainian war than to mine. I don’t know. Hegseth, Rubio and Vance almost certainly are. Me, I disagree with much of what they say on the subject. But they grasp that unavoidable military reality and are now seeking a way to end the pointless loss of life. That’s good enough for me and I believe should be for you.
………………………………
Here’s a man I discovered only recently, Commodore Jermyn. Apart from General Lord Richards he’s the only military authority I’ve come across in England who sets out that unavoidable military reality. Do have a run through the video. It tells us the obvious but sometimes the obvious is what has to be pointed out. A Ukrainian victory, whether deserved or not, was never on the cards.
Trump is not being defeatist, or an “appeaser” as they call it. He’s not suddenly taken it into his head to betray an ally or proxy. He’s merely recognising military reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2uclDqrUSU&ab_channel=DanielDavis%2FDeepDive
…………………………..
Forgot to link to the statement from Moscow that led to that comment of mine above.
“Telephone conversation with US President Donald Trump
“Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of the United States of America Donald Trump.”
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/76259
NATO should have ended when the USSR collapsed. The looting of the state assets by everyone, especially ‘western’ experts helped create the mess there, and enrich quite a few here, that exists now. The Munich Security Conference has for decades done what to ensure our noble ‘allies’ in Europe paid for their own defense at the levels they agreed to? Nope, didn’t do that. It did provide a nice venue for ‘networking’, sales sales and more sales – all with other people’s money. And an opportunity for a paid vacation in Europe for many. About damn time we extricate ourselves from that obligation.
“But Trump is in a dilemma.”
No TTG he is not.
“He promised to end the war quickly.”
Sure. How do we measure that, in calendar days or dead Ukrainians?
” With the US out of the picture, Russia will be emboldened …”
To quote M’baku from that great documentary, Black Panther:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5ThCqvuDmM
Really, we’ve been told by the 81 million ballot administration (wonder where 15 million went) that Russia was defeated, Ukraine was winning, rah rah rah. Apparently now it is “on to Paris” for the Russians like they did in 1814 all over again. Different century, different Czar. Sure.
” The prerequisite for an invitation is “a willingness for dialogue,” stressed Heusgen, ”
Said man from government which is desperate to stop their own citizens represented by elected member of AfD from taking leadership, even in a coalition government.
I suggest that the Europeans figure out how to fund their own defense forces. To do that I suggest that they get, dramatic pause, Big Balls. Have you seen the corruption and waste exposed in USAID and our other government agencies by that work?
Yeah, we want our money back and people jailed. Including men like Vindman and the Burisma executives not pardoned by Biden. His son will enjoy saying ‘I don’t recall’ a lot in court soon I’m sure. Have fun Europe.
Fred,
Trump promised to end the war in 24 hours from the time he was elected, not inaugurated. Even I knew that was a flat-assed lie. I’ll definitely give him credit for not continuing Biden’s escalation management policies. That just prolonged the war.
TTG,
All that butchery need never have happened. That’s the tragedy of the Borg running foreign policy.
Fred,
All that butchery was caused by Russia’s invasion. Ukraine had the temerity to resist.
TTG
There was peace in Ukraine for 24 years until the US regime change operation.
The Russian incursion was caused by the US incursion.
Ben,
If Yanukovych didn’t disregard the ruling of the Verkhovna Rada and the will of the majority of the Ukrainian people in 2013, the large-scale Euromaidan protests wouldn’t have started in November 2013. Yanukovych chose to go with Moscow’s aid package rather than the EU package. That flaunting of the people’s will and the Verkohvna Rada’s ruling led to the fall of his government. The new government chose the EU. Moscow was not about to see another domino fall. That’s what ultimately brought about the Russian invasion.
TTG,
Absolutely correct. To call this “Bidens War” is disingenuous and false.
Conservative Senator Tom Cotton had this to say:
“The weapons that Ukraine used in the early days of this war to fend off the Russian invasion are the weapons that Donald Trump sent, that Barack Obama and Joe Biden had refused to send.”
One could opine that this is Trumps war. The fact is that it is neither Trump nor Bidens war, it is Putin’s war.
Supporting Ukraine is part of the “global war on terrorism.”
The convicted felon is sending mixed messages. The completely unqualified, drunk, Secretary of Defense is saying one thing, while “eyeliner boy” is threatening to start WW III, by sending US troops into Ukraine.
https://www.newsweek.com/us-send-troops-fight-russia-jd-vance-2031058.
Which is it, support Ukraine in its fight against Russian genocide and terrorism or let Russia “do whatever the hell they want.”
Any money saved from throwing Ukraine under the bus, or cutting wasteful government spending, will not be for America’s benefit. Any money saved will be used for huge tax cuts for the convicted felon’s billionaire supporters.
All that butchery was caused by Lenin, who hated russians, when he stole Nova Rossya and Mala Rossya to give them to Ukraine, a complete creation of the Communist party.
Always funny to see you supporting communist ruling.
TTG,
We marched NATO to the Russian border. WTF did you think was going to happen?
Fred,
NATO was on the Russian border in 2004 when the Baltics entered NATO. No NATO troops marched into Ukraine.
TTG,
Yes not 1991. Marching East any lying to the government that took over from the corrupt and incompetent Yeltsin. How long did it take to even begin fixing that mess? Again, march East for years and act all surprised at a war 5,000 miles away.
Fred,
It’s more like all those former parts of the USSR and the WTO marched west, away from Moscow. Not of that sat well with Putin.
TTG,
They can pay for their own defense, which is what should have happened from the beginning. Nice try though.
The really remarkable JD Vance speech at the Munich Security Conference:
“JD Vance attacks Europe over migration, free speech
U.S. vice president stunned the audience with his broadside on the way Europe is run.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/us-vice-president-jd-vance-attack-europe-migration-free-speech/
“MUNICH — United States Vice President JD Vance launched a blistering attack on European governments on Friday, chastising them for ignoring the will of their people, overturning elections, ignoring religious freedoms and not acting to halt illegal migration.
It was a U.S.-style MAGA, red meat speech that eschewed detailed discussion of defense and security — the topic of the Munich Security Conference.”
I, for one, applaud Vance for his emphasis on issues that really matter, instead of what Biden, Kamela Harris, and the U.S. Democratic party were pushing.
Keith,
IMO, The Trump admin seeks to spread the MAGA revolution to the UK and Europe. Given the growing sentiments of the populace, they will probably take it up just as we Americans did. Hence Vance’s approach. I hope it works out as planned. The UK and the Euro leadership is rotten to the core.
On Ukraine, I have said since mid-2022 that some day the Euros would commit combat troops to Ukraine. It looks like they are still headed toward that decision. Of course, the troops will be called “peace keepers”. Zelensky and the Euros will execute a false flag op, stir up a kinetic event between Euro troops and Russians or allow one to happen. Then they will be in a shooting war against Russia. They will try to suck the US back in. Vance is also trying to preempt all of that by telling them that the US is done with it. Period. So don’t try it.
You can hear Vance said in this 20 minute video:
https://youtu.be/pCOsgfINdKg
In my opinion, it’s well worth listening to what Vance actually said.
Keith,
Yes, as usual, the American Govt/Pravda complex distorts, selectively edits and outright falsifies what it’s enemies – e.g. America First – says and does. A lot of that gets repeated even here. The fine people hoax is dead, long live the fine people hoax.
Keith,
Is it normal for speakers at the Munich mutual defense meeting to lecture each other about their internal politics? If not, it would seem Vance is stuck in campaign mode and/or out of his depth.
Republican Senator, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, calls Hegseth a rookie after Heg gave away the US negotiating position on Ukraine before negotiations started. That was after Heg said it was “unrealistic” for Ukraine to gain back its pre-war borders in its ongoing war with Russia. Also says Heg probably got that from Tucker Carlson, who Senator Wicker calls a fool.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pete-hegseth-slammed-republican-senator-133403662.html
Wicker is the chairman on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He also serves on three other Senate committees – Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Rules Committee.
Leith,
When did the US become responsible for Ukraine?
In all his years in congress how much USAID fraud did Wicker uncover?
Fred –
Don’t shoot the messenger. A Republican Senator said it, not me.
And you missed the main point though: Wicker calls Hegspeth a Rookie, while ignoring Trump who made the same comments Heg did. So Slick Wicker is subtly attacking Dee-mentia Donald by going after his lackey. Gets a dig in on Trump’s other good buddy Cackler Carlson.
Next I’m betting he’s going after the African Immigrant’s $400M deal to sell those piece-of-crap Teslas to Uncle Sam.
Later-in-the-day reactions to Vance’s speech:
“Vance brings a wrecking ball to diplomatic gathering in Munich
The U.S. vice president roasted the continent’s way of governing itself.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/vance-brings-a-wrecking-ball-to-diplomatic-gathering-in-munich/
A sample:
However, some reactions were actually positive.
Larry Johnson got in a good line:
https://sonar21.com/jd-vance-gobsmacks-nato/
More European reactions to Vance’s speech:
https://www.dw.com/en/msc-2025-france-plans-ukraine-summit-amid-us-fallout/live-71599568
(updated 2025-02-15)
Aside from AfD, rather severe wall-to-wall criticism.
“France confirmed it is hosting a summit of European leaders on Monday as the region seeks to respond to the US’ change of course on Ukraine
The MSC entered its final day as rifts emerged between Europe and the US over how to deal with security concerns”
The problem in England at least is that all assume NATO is the powerful land force it was during the previous Cold War. We merely need to use it in order to beat the Russians. So we most of us believe Trump’s wimping out by refusing to deploy the American component of that land army. Trump’s betraying the cause, is the general mood, or at least the mood as expressed by our politicians and press.
But even in the old days, when it was larger and more combat ready than it is now, NATO was not expected to beat the Russians. It was expected to fight a delaying action that would eventually lead to nuclear war if the Russians persisted. Biden made it clear at the start he wasn’t going down that road (“no boots on the ground”) and Trump won’t either. Biden knew that direct intervention would lead to World War III and thus to nuclear, and said so. So he eschewed direct military intervention, as Trump will.
The only hope of defeating Russia lay in the sanctions war. When that failed, and it failed quite early on, the Americans gave up on defeating Russia and regarded the war more as a means of weakening it. There were statements from American politicians to that effect. We were getting Russians killed at little cost to ourselves.
The Kellog/Fleitz report is a farrago of misconception and inaccuracy and may be regarded mainly as an attack on Biden for electoral purposes, but even there one can see that by late 2022 the Americans had given up hope of defeating Russia and were only hoping to weaken it:-
In short, the Biden Administration began in late 2022 to use the Ukrainian military to fight a proxy war to promote U.S. policy goals of weakening the Putin regime at home and destroying its military. It was not a strategy, but a hope based on emotion. It was not a plan for success.
Biden’s repeated statements that he was prepared to send arms to Ukraine “for as long as it takes” without providing a strategy for Ukraine to win the war or a plan to end the conflict epitomized the real intention of his policy to use the conflict as a U.S. proxy war against Russia. Biden, throughout his tenure, attempted to define the “as long as it takes” approach by claiming the war was about standing up to a tyrant and defending and promoting global democracy.[i] But Biden never explained how U.S. military support of Ukraine would accomplish his goals.
https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/america-first-russia-ukraine
We may take even that italicised passage with a pinch of salt. As some of the more honest American politicians stated, the American money that was billed as “aid to Ukraine” to a large degree stayed in America and provided jobs across a number of states. There’s some attention being paid now to the corruption in Ukraine and America that was bound up with this “aid” but what we mostly saw, both in Europe and the US, was often something different and I believe more important.
Obsolete or out of date equipment was sent over. If it contained advanced technology that would better not be in the hands of the Russians, that was stripped out before shipping. We saw that done with the Abrams tanks. To an extent the battle fields of Ukraine became a means of getting obsolete materiel, that would often have been expensive to scrap, off the books. The manufacture of up to date replacements provided the jobs at home. I stress only to an extent, but the Ukrainian “aid” can partly be regarded as an opportunity for old fashioned pork barrel and I recollect some American politicians at the time stressing that the dollars and the jobs mostly stayed at home.
We were also able to test and develop our ISR facilities, the American component of which I believe was advanced, in real time combat. Without those facilities the Ukrainians would have been in even worse trouble early on so that was aid that benefited both the Ukrainians and us.
Less successful was the opportunity it gave us to hone the skills of our Generals. We micro-managed the Ukrainian war for the Ukrainians and, often against their better judgement, pushed them into such disasters as the “Summer Offensive” or the Krynky or Kursk debacles. Turned out, then, that there weren’t many skills to hone in that respect and the bodies strewn across the killing fields of Ukraine bear testimony to the disconcerting ineptitude of the Western militaries when it came to directing the fighting of a real war.
It’s been a shambles from day one, that Ukrainian war. What the military gentlemen term, in their arcane technical language, a “total balls-up”. Trump’s taken one look at it and decided, as a prudent businessman should, to cut his losses without further ado.
As for all the vehement protest we’re seeing coming from the European side, that’s not real. Blame game stuff. They know well enough the Ukrainian venture is not only a military disaster. It’s a political and economic disaster of the first order that even the European electorates are starting to notice. The blame for that disaster must forthwith be transferred to the Americans, which is what we’re seeing the European politicians and press doing at present.
EO,
I never read Kellogg’s critique of the war before. Thanks for highlighting it. I find it, for the most part, a correct assessment of both Trump’s and Biden’s actions towards Ukraine and Russia. I thought Biden’s early efforts to unite NATO in support of Ukraine were damned good. His shepherding of sanctions were far better than Obama’s in reaction to the first incursion. But I do believe Biden hoped it would be a deterrence to a Russian invasion that a policy to be implemented. I don’t think he intended to prolong the war to weaken Russia. He was genuinely fearful of provoking Putin into a wider war. Hence, the ineffective policy of escalation management. He talked big, but failed to back those words with real and timely support.
Kellogg is right. A strong support of Ukraine to repel the invader does not mean we, the US, cannot engage with Russia in those other areas of mutual interest. Our cooperation in space began at the height of the Cold War.
Oh TTG! Biden didn’t have to shepherd the Euros into the sanctions! I really do believe that all the American analysts who examine this war neglect or misread the European dimension.
Biden himself, or to speak more accurately the Biden team, might have had hopes of destabilising the RF at the very beginning of the SMO. His Warsaw speech can certainly be read that way:-
“The (Russian) economy is on track to be cut in half in the coming years. It was ranked, Russia’s economy was ranked the 11th biggest economy in the world before this invasion. It will soon not even rank among the top 20 in the world.
Taken together [applause] these economic sanctions, a new kind of economic statecraft with the power to inflict damage that rivals military might. These international sanctions are sapping Russian strength, its ability to replenish its military, and its ability to project power. And it’s Putin, it is Vladimir Putin who is to blame. Period.
“At the same time, alongside these economic sanctions, the Western world has come together to provide for the people of Ukraine with incredible levels of military, economic, humanitarian assistance.”
Concluding, on Putin:-
” For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-transcript-president-bidens-speech-warsaw-russias-invasion/story?id=83690301
But even at that early stage Washington is not hoping for a quick kill: “That’s why [applause], that’s why I came to Europe again this week with a clear and determined message for NATO, for the G7, for the European Union, for all freedom-loving nations — we must commit now to be in this fight for the long haul.”
Allowing for the hyperbole we see a rational purpose here. To “sap” Russian strength long term. That rational purpose set out in the Rand study so often quoted. (“Geopolitical Cost-Imposing Measures”)
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
A rational purpose because US/Russia trade was not great. And Biden knew, and stated early on, that there could be no direct armed conflict between the two powers. This was seen by Washington as a containable war that would not jeopardise the US but that offered a good chance – it was regarded at the time as a certainty – of degrading Russian strength without much harming America. A gamble with limited downside as it seemed to Washington at the time.
Not so for the Europeans. I was astounded in early 2022. Still am. As Borrell was to say later, the twin pillars of the European economy were cheap energy and full access to world trade. And here were the Europeans deliberately demolishing both! The one sound large economy in Europe, Germany, being not only the economy that needed those twin pillars the most but the economy that shored up the otherwise fragile economy of the EU. What the hell were the Germans playing at?
For Europe, including the already weak economy of the UK, this was not a rational gamble as it was for Washington. It was a gamble with a serious downside if it did not come off. And I can assure you, TTG, that this was not a case of witless Europoodles being dragged into a destructive conflict by the US neocons. The Europeans were more set on the gamble than the Americans themselves. Why?
Been asking that question for three years now. No simple answer. The dynamics of the EU: the EU’s like a man on a wonky bicycle. It has to keep pedalling forward to ever closer union or it ends in tears and there’s no greater incentive to closer union than a perceived outside threat. The desire of Berlin/Brussels to “project the power of a Continent”: the Euros want a seat at the big table too. The White Tiger: the Americans don’t grasp the depth of straight Russophobia here because that’s not prevalent in the US. And the prize, had there been the quick kill the Europeans themselves were certainly hoping for, limitless.
All those factors combining to the madness that seized the European politicians in 2021 – I believe well before – and that played out to the full in February 2022.
So what the American analysts see as the Euros being dragged along in the wake of the Washington neocons was more truly a case of the Euros hoping to leverage the financial and military power of the United States to achieve their own ends.
Didn’t work of course. As Patrick Armstrong and Larry Johnson were warning us here at the time, the Russians were immeasurably stronger, militarily and economically, than they were thought to be. As Cavoli points out, they’re stronger yet now.
And now Washington’s sending over some cheerful characters who’re saying “The show’s over, lads. It didn’t work”. One of the cheerful characters, Vance, adding for good measure that the Europeans themselves could put some work into getting their own house in order. If they want to be considered useful members of the Free World.
No wonder we’re seeing a collective mental breakdown this side of the Atlantic. If one looks carefully at the videos of the Europoodles on the internet, I swear you can see the steam coming out of their ears.
A further bombshell, as significant as the announcement of the Trump/Putin call and building on that call. The Rubio/Lavrov call.
Cuts both the Europeans and Zelensky out. Odd European response, the UK Prime Minister leading off:-
• As European leaders prepare for emergency talks in Paris, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer says he’s ready to put UK peacekeeping troops in Ukraine
• Starmer says he is “ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary”
• His comments come as Europe’s leaders meet on Monday afternoon to discuss Ukraine and defence
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/crr0gngkjrvt
An acerbic look at that idea from the UK defence expert, Dr North:-
https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/front-page/defence-empty-rhetoric/
Alexander Mercouris does a superb analysis of all the diplomatic coming and going, covering the European and also the global reaction, but here what’s relevant is that the Russians and the Americans are getting down to business unencumbered by the bit players.
It’s a difficult business to get down to. The Russian requirements, if it’s OK to reference another site TTG, I attempted to summarise a day or so back on “b’s” site. They are tough and the Russians have allowed themselves little room for give:-
– There are the security demands the Russians set out in the late 2021 draft treaties. These are very far reaching. The Russians still regard those security demands as central to any agreed peace settlement with the West though the West still regards those demands as impossible.
– Then, the “demilitarisation and denazification” conditions set out by Putin at the start of the SMO and repeated at intervals since. The West thinks that’s all nonsense and PR but the Russians don’t. If Putin fails on that, having insisted on it so forcefully, his entire administration loses credibility. Putin’s poll ratings would drop like a stone if, for example, the Bandera monuments in Ukraine remained standing. “Demilitarisation and denazification” is not something, therefore, that’s up for discussion. Not for the Russians.
– Then there’s the Istanbul agreement. Now it’s Istanbul plus and Lavrov’s said that that has to be at least the starting point for a settlement.
– Then there are the conditions set out by Putin in the speech to the Foreign Office officials mid 2024 and confirmed by Lavrov in the Newsweek interview. There are territorial conditions there and, most importantly, the condition that all sanctions be lifted.
Put all that together and we see that the Russians are insisting on a formidable set of conditions before a peace can be negotiated. Nebenzia and others have recently restated those conditions.
On top of all that the Russians have said there have to be a whole lot of preliminary discussions to lay out the basis for talks before any serious talks between principals can take place.
Trump hasn’t similarly boxed himself in. He starts off with a clean slate by rejecting the Biden administration’s policy in its entirety and side-lining the Europeans. But whatever agreement he arrives at with the Russians it’s difficult to see how he can get any settlement past Kiev.
It may be there’s a limit to the pressure Trump can put on the Kiev administration to agree to territorial concessions. Kuleba, still influential and representing the more extremist ultras, states that if such concessions are agreed Zelensky’s physical survival is at risk as well as his political survival. As far as such as Azov are concerned the threats to Zelensky’s life we saw made during the Zolote incident are still real threats.
Even if we regard Zelensky as a puppet of the West, my view since he was elected, those threats limit the degree to which he can accept instructions from the West. He and his family are not going to want to have to rely on heavy security protection from angry ultras for the rest of their lives.
Constraints on all sides, therefore, and it would be naïve to hope that the killing could end tomorrow.
But it’s closer to ending. Trump’s dramatic recent actions will I think have some direct consequences in Ukraine even though they cannot alter the ultimate outcome of the war.
Those recent actions must, surely, make the puppet government we have installed in Kiev understand that the game’s up and they’d best stop feeding men into the killing grounds to no purpose. Fewer Ukrainians, fewer Russians too, and fewer of our own people of course, will now die.
EO wrote
“I attempted to summarise a day or so back on “b’s” site.”
Can you give a link to that?
Thank you.
If Trump isn’t careful, he will be compared to Harold Macmillan and receive a similar reputation. Given the mouthing off by several of the Trumpists, there is already a leadership problem. In many ways, the world is facing what they faced about a century ago. Rising fascism that was not dealt with by less than adequate responses.
The most important issue is making sure that Russia pays and pays for going to war against a neighbor and all arguments that they had to are still bogus. At this point we are looking at a weaker US, but a stronger EU, which many be a bonus.
Lars,
Only 3 weeks and he has already been demoted from Hitler to Harold Macmillan. At this rate he’ll be Nelson Mandela before Christmas.
I don’t think he has been demoted at all, at least not yet. But if you mean that he should spend 30 years in prison like Mandela, I am all for it.
LOL, Harold Macmillan who….
you guys keep arguing over the recent past. here’s the recent future. Putin & President Nasty are teaching the non-US NATO nations the obvious path ahead. Steps toward Proliferation w/ a Good Purpose. I hope they all join in… shouldn’t be that expensive… at least not as (spiritually) expensive as having to listen to Nasty, Rubio & Hesgeth… & our newest ally.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/17/europe-france-uk-nuclear-shield-emmanuel-macron
TTG – forgot the crucial links again. Maut I submit them here?
“15 February 2025 22:05
“Press Release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio”
https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1997596/
…………………………..
“Secretary Rubio’s Call with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov
Readout
“Office of the Spokesperson
“February 15, 2025”
https://www.state.gov/secretary-rubios-call-with-russian-foreign-minister-lavrov
A skeptical look at the value of Ukraine’s mineral resources,
and at the extraordinarily high penalty being asked of Ukraine:
“Revealed: Trump’s confidential plan to put Ukraine in a stranglehold
Panic in Kyiv as US president demands higher share of GDP than Germany’s First World War reparations”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/17/revealed-trump-confidential-plan-ukraine-stranglehold/
“Donald Trump’s demand for a $500bn (£400bn) “payback” from Ukraine
goes far beyond US control over the country’s critical minerals.
It covers everything from ports and infrastructure to oil and gas, and the larger resource base of the country.”
Is Trump serious about the minerals? What is he after anyway?
Sleboda best sums up the difficulty of attempting to discern Trump’s ultimate aims: he says the data points are all over the place. That is, you take one American statement and think it shows them going one way, then the next statement and think it shows them going quite another. So you can’t really tell what Trump’s up to.
Probably how the Americans like it. Trump’s in an awkward position himself. American conventional military strength is insufficient in this theatre, the Americans will not contemplate nuclear war, and the trade war’s a bust. So Trump is cutting his losses as best he can.
Leaving the Europeans furious. The Garden is in turmoil. One can now see why they’ve always been dead set on keeping Trump away from the Presidency. The European politicians really do need this war kept going. It’s all they have to keep their electorates behind them. But Europe does not have the clout to keep the war going without the Americans.
Terrible position. When we look at the European motives in this war vis a vis the American motives, the argument has always been about whether the tail is wagging the dog or the dog wagging the tail. A redundant argument now. Looks very much as if Trump has forcefully detached the tail from the dog.
Leaving the tail perplexed. Difficult for the Europeans to be on the one hand furious with the Americans whilst, on the other, recognising that without them there’s no NATO. “We hate you but we need you!” If you’re after some light entertainment, this gives some idea of the muddle they’re in:-
“It is an existential moment”: The Old Continent’s New Geopolitical Role | MSC 2025 | BR24″
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRbFPM36QUA&t=3s&ab_channel=BR24
It’s a riot, start to finish. They’re discussing what they term “The war against our country.” “Our country” being Euroland, for those who don’t understand that nations are so yesterday. With a starring role for the entrancing Bellatrix LeBaerbock but the UK Foreign Secretary, the most dogged Europoodle of them all, stealing the show.
Quite a goer that man, I thought. Like most Englishmen I try not to pay too much attention to UK politics right now. Pretend it isn’t happening is the best approach, if one wishes to keep sane and cheerful. But as I watched them putting David Lammy through his paces I couldn’t help thinking he’d make a rather more convincing Prime Minister than the ambulatory cadaver.
Bellatrix, by the way, expertly dodging the question of using Taurus. And one of them raises the question of how best to indoctrinate the children.
As they must, if the Brandmauer is to hold. The Guardians of our new Festung Europa know where they want to get to, if they’re all over the place about how to get there.
…………………………………..
But enough of Euroland! The Last Days of the Reich were never really going to be fun viewing. What’s happening out there in the real world? Anything new on our proxy slaughterhouse in Ukraine?
No, nothing new on that. As ever, we’re still marching our proxies into the killing fields and the questions remain the same questions we’ve been asking ourselves since ’22. How much of the old Ukraine will the Russians decide to take back. How will the Russians be able to neutralise remnant Ukraine without having to occupy it. And will the Russians impose counter-sanctions if they find European NATO getting too much of a nuisance.
Sleboda et al, the analysts on the other side of the fence, either don’t know the answers to those questions or they do but aren’t telling us. Our side of the fence, everyone’s guessing away like mad. So we’re in the same position as we’ve been in for the last three years. Waiting to see what the Russian decision on those questions turns out to be.
What resulted from Macron’s “emergency summit”?
Here is a look:
“Europe’s leaders find no quick response to Trump’s bombshell on Ukraine
Common ground proves elusive, including on sending peacekeepers.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/europes-leader-donald-trump-ukraine-peace-deal-emmanuel-macron-presidential-palace-donald-tusk/
*PARIS — A French-led effort by European leaders to present a united front on Ukraine in the face of rising fear over U.S. President Donald Trump’s intentions
fizzled Monday as they failed to agree on sending troops to police a possible peace deal.”