Six reasons to think what happened in the Oval Office was for the better
The ambush by mercenary J.D. Vance at noon in the not-so-pretty coral Oval Office of the White House was more like a theatrical performance than a TV show.
At first, it looked like an absolute disaster for President Zelensky and Ukraine – risking the end of U.S. military support for Ukraine and even harder days ahead for Ukrainians in their existential battle for survival. But now that the dust has settled in the Oval Office, I see a few positives for Ukraine.
First. …while the minerals deal is hardly worth the paper it’s written on (with zero real security or funding commitments from the US), it gave Zelensky the opportunity to present the Ukrainian position and, at worst, to find out whose side the Trump administration is on – Ukraine or Russia. In the former case, Ukraine could make plans accordingly, since at least it would be spared the suffering.
As it turned out, the worst option was chosen, and it was probably clear to everyone from the aggression that both Vance and Trump displayed towards Zelensky that they were siding with Russia. Trump even repeated his Helsinki summit line that he trusted Putin – and much more than he trusted Zelensky and Ukraine.
Now Ukraine knows that the US does not stand behind it, so it will be better prepared (if it adopts other strategies and options).
Second. The US position has become known to the whole world. They are pro-Russian and can no longer be seen as a neutral arbiter in peace negotiations. The United States has effectively lost the right to negotiate.
Before the conflict in the Oval Office, Ukraine and Europe were largely excluded from the peace process, which was driven by the United States and Russia.
Ukraine and Europe feared that they would have to live with an imposed and, most likely, unstable peace. But after the failure in the White House, Europe was forced to seize the initiative in the peace process. As a result, any peace would likely be better for Ukraine, longer-lasting, and more durable, because its legitimate security concerns were not too much of a concern for Trump, but now Europe can put them at the forefront.
The initiative was seized by Russia and the United States, who were working on an agenda that was contrary to the interests of Ukraine and Europe.
In fact, the four-point peace plan proposed by Britain, Italy and France looks reasonable: arm Ukraine, give it the tools to defend itself, try to achieve a month-long ceasefire first (in the air and at sea, which are easier to monitor), and then move on to a comprehensive ceasefire. Europe has made it clear that Ukraine needs security guarantees and weapons for self-defense.
Third. This scandal has been perhaps the last wake-up call for Europe. It has become clear that NATO as a collective security organization is unsustainable, that American security guarantees for Europe have ended, and that Europeans must step up if they care about their own security.
And I think we have seen this recently.
European defense spending will increase, but as we all know, its military industrial capacity is limited, and therefore Europe will inevitably remain dependent on the United States in the short term.
But it has leverage, and it should realize that.
It will increase defense spending, but it will have to buy off the US for a while. It would be wise to play it safe by committing to a long-term arms purchase program from the US. Let’s say $1 trillion over ten years, a deal that even Trump could not refuse. Call it Trump’s democracy defense program, whatever you like to flatter his enormous ego. Trump is unlikely to say no to new jobs in the US. And it would allow Europe to bridge the short-term gap in defense production, giving it time to reorient its economy and industry.
The strategic mistake Trump is heading for
In the long term, there is a lot of talk now about the deal that Nixon made – the US alliance with Russia against China. This seems like an absurd long-term choice for the US, which is pushing away the $27 trillion European economy in favor of the $2 trillion Russian economy.
In ten years, Europe will have its defense industry in order in the medium term, and then it will be able to provide the US with military assistance of unparalleled scale in countering threats.
Imagine Europe’s spending: 4% of $27 trillion on defense, or $1.1 trillion, which is half of Russia’s GDP. Even if Russia completely switched to military rails, Russia would not be able to offer the US such an amount in the confrontation with China. But Europe can.
Turkey’s presence at the Lancaster summit is also inspiring. Turkey, with its 800,000-strong land army, is the only state in the European part of NATO that to station tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of troops on Ukrainian soil. Turkey also has the manufacturing capacity to help fill the gaps in European military-industrial production. But Turkey wants something in return – technology sharing, access to finance and markets – a new Customs Union with the EU and deeper trade relations with the UK. This is easy to achieve – these fruits hang low. Turkey is not an ally of Russia. It is nervous about the prospect of a Russian victory in Ukraine and its dominance in and around the Black Sea. Europe must extend a helping hand to Turkey.
Fourth. The UK has returned to Europe, finding itself, albeit somewhat unwillingly, at the epicentre of the peace process. Not long ago, Sir Keir Starmer played his part admirably, demonstrating great skill in negotiating with the US, Europe and Ukraine. Unfortunately, after Britain left the EU, Europe lacked first-class British diplomatic skills, but now Britain has realized that if it wants a safe and secure Europe, it must get in on the act – whether with its troops or diplomats in the conference room. We are doing it well.
Fifth. What happened in the Oval Office showed the world who the aggressors are and who the victims are. Zelensky spoke on behalf of the victims. Just imagine – Ukraine, which has lost hundreds of thousands of people – killed, wounded, raped, kidnapped by Russia, was being asked to “thank you”. In fact, as CNN later found out, Zelensky had already publicly thanked the US 94 times. What more do they need? Get down on all fours and kiss Trump’s ring? I think the Global South will now side with Ukraine.
Sixth, if I were sitting in Beijing, I would be concerned about what is happening in Washington – it is now clear that the US wants to side with Russia, against China. I think China needs more friends in Europe now, and it needs to go out of its way and show the US that it has other options.
Timothy Ash is senior sovereign emerging markets strategist at London-based Bluebay Asset Management, Kyiv Post
