Still, no doubt, bathed in the warm, if also absurd, glow of being the first ever recipient of the Fifa Peace Prize, Donald Trump might be in the mood to promote a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, it would be nice to think. This would, aside from anything else, strengthen President Trump’s insistent claim on the Nobel Peace Prize, which has not quite been superseded in prestige by the cynical golden trophy that the president of Fifa, Gianni Infantino, presented to him.
The worry, however, is that Mr Trump’s innate sympathy for Russia and rush to get any kind of settlement, no matter how grotesque, signed off will result either in a collapse of the whole process, with America completely abandoning Ukraine and relaxing sanctions on Russia; or an imposed deal almost entirely on the Kremlin’s terms that will leave Ukraine, other European nations and Nato itself fatally compromised. Such suspicions are only heightened by the recent publication of the official United States National Security Strategy, which confirms that it is US policy to weaken democratically elected liberal European governments, to undermine the European Union and prevent the expansion of Nato. Instead of treating its European allies as sovereign equals with shared values, the Trump administration would prefer them to be more like Hungary.
Washington now feels it can patronise the European powers and “help Europe correct its current trajectory”. Whether Europe’s governments and voters like it or not, presumably.
European leaders might well regret the current trajectory of Mr Trump’s America, but choose not to turn their misgivings into a public declaration of intent to interfere in American politics. The American foreign policy document, decorated with the presidential seal, tellingly said nothing about the state of free speech and human rights in Putin’s Russia. But the government of the United States does criticise other European nations for holding “unrealistic expectations for the war” in Ukraine.
So the latest talks in London between the leaders of Ukraine, France, Germany and Britain take place against an unpromising background. Hosted by the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, he, President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Friedrich Merz will impress on President Volodymyr Zelensky their support for Ukraine and reassure him that they will do everything in their power to ensure that Ukraine is not betrayed by the Americans because of President Trump’s long held, albeit sometimes intermittent, desire to normalise relations with Russia and explore what are thought to be lucrative economic opportunities, once the war in Ukraine is over.
We know that this is their intention because details of a phone call between President Macron, Chancellor Merz, President Alexander Stubb of Finland and President Zelensky to that effect were recently leaked, and the fear explicitly expressed by the western European leaders is that, metaphorically, “we must not leave Ukraine and Volodymyr alone with these guys”.
The hope must be that those European leaders can so influence the various negotiations now taking place between the Ukrainians, the Russians and the Americans that vital European and Ukrainian interests are protected. This means territory and security guarantees, as has always been the case. Unfortunately, the time when a united West insisted on nothing less than the withdrawal of all Russian forces from sovereign territory passed when Mr Trump won the presidential election last year. It was, for the record, a perfectly viable policy and one that, as the Russian economy buckled under the demands of war, had some chance of success in the not-so-distant future. Now the focus is on limiting Russian gains, and maximising Ukrainian – and European – security. That means that President Putin should not simply take over those parts of Ukraine he has still failed to conquer; but that if that does become the unwilling policy of Kyiv, that nothing less than Nato-style “Article 5” security guarantees be granted by the United States, with an appropriate military presence, and the maintenance of Ukraine’s considerable modern combat capacity.
The fear must be that even if President Zelensky is bullied into discussing what was so recently regarded as unthinkable, the concessions Kyiv makes would still be insufficient for Vladimir Putin. In such a circumstance, when push comes to shove, which way will Mr Trump turn? Sir Keir is said to believe that, as on past occasions, exasperation with the Kremlin means Mr Trump will resume aid to Ukraine and impose tighter sanctions on Russia, including on Putin-friendly powers such as India and China. The coalition of the willing’s professional Trump whisperers – President Stubb, Nato secretary general Mark Rutte, Sir Keir himself and possibly Giorgia Meloni of Italy – could be deployed on such a mission to balance the voice of the Kremlin and the president’s own son-in-law Jared Kushner and his peace envoy Steve Witkoff.
It is, however, equally plausible that Mr Trump will leave Ukraine and its allies in Europe in an invidious position: either agree to a surrender deal or Mr Trump will declare himself “done” with the whole thing and resume his efforts to help Russia rejoin the world economy, with all that means for the strength of the Russian war machine. If so, then the war will drag on, and we shall see just how “willing” the European coalition of the willing really is. In that case, Mr Trump won’t get his Nobel Peace Prize, and the Fifa version will have to do for the groaning gilded mantelpiece in the Oval Office. The president won’t like that; and that could just make him pressure President Putin as never before.
It is strange, and quietly terrifying, that the security of the European continent should rest on the competing vanities of an insecure former Manhattan property developer with an outsize ego, but that is the hand that the American people dealt their allies a little over a year ago. Sir Keir and his colleagues, like Mr Zelensky, may not have all the cards, but they have some, and if they can play them as well as Mr Trump thinks he can play his, then Ukraine can perhaps still be saved, made secure, and the world can move on.
