Ukraine's Fate: Molotov-Ribbentrop, or a Trump-Putin Joint Venture?

ANALYSIS

A view from Kupiansk in eastern Ukraine where Russian troops are slowly advancing. Photo by Kim Reczek.

This week, even as his troops are still fighting and dying on the battlefield, Russian President Vladimir Putin emerged victorious.

His tactics—industrial warfare not seen since World War II combined with a relentless refusal to yield to pressure—have been vindicated and are being handsomely rewarded.

Putin's main line of reasoning—that no matter what price the Russian people had to pay—was that he could outlast the West, and this has proved correct.

Lest we forget, let's cast our minds back three years to February 24, 2022. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine began unraveling within hours.

The tyres on its armored personnel carriers popped, its airborne assault troops were shot out of the sky by Ukrainian gunners, and its tanks were blown up with shoulder-held weapons.

Within days, it was clear that Kyiv would not fall easily—something that the Russians, the West, and even many Ukrainians had expected. Within weeks, the Kremlin was forced into a humiliating retreat from the approaches to the capital.

They left behind the evidence of such horrific war crimes that early talks of possible negotiations—almost certainly doomed to fail in any case—evaporated as a wave of disgust swept through Kyiv, Washington, and European capitals.

Putin's successes are now stacking up by the day, but let's enumerate them nonetheless:

For one, he is set to hold onto the 20 percent of Ukraine he has seized through violence, something that as little as 18 months ago, when Ukrainian officials were openly talking about seizing back Crimea by Christmas, seemed unlikely.

Secondly, NATO membership for Ukraine, which until very recently had been framed by many Western allies as a when-not-if, has been ruled out.

Even under the Biden administration, these were concessions that Kyiv may have had to countenance. But U.S. President Donald Trump has given Moscow so much more.

He has invited Putin in from the cold, offered him a seat by the fire, and then shooed America's long-standing friends out of the room.

For the Russian—who shares Trump's vanity—this alone is the equivalent of an Olympic gold medal. Barack Obama once called Russia a "regional" power, a jibe that deeply stung Putin.

Now, Russia's political heft is once again apparently global and on display for all to see.

And the Trumpian gifts have kept coming.

The U.S. president has, in a single week, effectively hobbled and perhaps permanently crippled NATO, fulfilling a key, substantial, and long-term Russian policy objective.

And he has demanded that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—who he (falsely) claims has only a four-percent approval rating—submit to elections that would allow Russia to install, or at least jockey for, a new pro-Kremlin leader in Kyiv.

We may detest his methods and his aims, but we have to admit that, given the hand that Putin inherited when he took over from an ailing Boris Yeltsin at the end of 1999, he has proved a canny, ruthless, and highly successful empire builder.

He has full control over Belarus, significant influence in Georgia, and a playable hand in Moldova and possibly even Romania, which both hold elections later this year. He has allies at the helm in Budapest, Bratislava, and Belgrade, and some sympathy further west.

Of course, whether Putin is a success or not depends on perspective. Hundreds of thousands of Russians have died to bring about his victory, and hundreds of thousands more of its most talented citizens have left the country.

Investment in national infrastructure has nosedived, leaving roads and railways in an increasingly parlous state.

Just as under Soviet Communism, those who articulate anti-government views end up in court. The more ardent are pitched out of windows, poisoned, or, occasionally, gunned down.

But defenestration, Novichok, or a silenced Glock are not the Kremlin's usual weapons of choice. Just as in many countries run by successful populists, state television has sedated the populace in a way that assassination never could.

Amid this jackpot payout for Russia, we must pinch ourselves to remember that the U.S. elections, which made all this possible, were less than three months ago.

Had Kamala Harris won, Ukraine would probably still have a fighting chance of, if not winning the war, then at least entering negotiations with chips to play.

But all that has gone. The U.S., Kyiv's single biggest backer, has effectively switched sides. Yesterday, addressing Ukraine, Trump said: "You should never have started it. You could have made a deal."

(The deal on the table, if any of us need reminding, was almost total subjugation to Moscow.)

Trump now clearly wants Zelensky, the face of Ukrainian resistance, out.

But why?

The logical conclusion—and there were hints of this in Riyadh this week after the Russians and Americans met in a closed-door session and discussed shared "business" objectives—is that America and Russia want to divvy up Ukraine.

Trump has already tried to compel Kyiv to hand over hundreds of billions, and possibly trillions, of dollars worth of mineral rights and state assets. Moscow is talking about demanding war reparations.

So what will the fate of Ukraine be? The omens are extremely poor.

The most likely scenarios now would seem to be a 21st-century Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, where the Americans take much of the west and the Russians get the east.

Or perhaps even a Trump-Putin joint venture, where the Russians control the politics and the Americans get the mineral wealth.

Three months ago, such scenarios would have been treated as the wildest of conspiracy theories.

Today, they appear to be the most likely outcomes.

Pity Ukraine.

Please ‘like’ this if you liked it, and offer comments and thoughts, positive or negative. I couldn't produce this blog without those of you who have signed up for a paid subscription. So thank you.