Current Affairs

JD Vance argues that a security guarantee does not meet the defence capabilities necessary to guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty. The vice president in an interview with Fox placed his argument in front of millions of Americans who were his target audience. After the debacle of the White house meeting with Zelensky, it is not really a question of who or what caused the chaos, but it is more an argument of how Trump wants to play his hand. But whether Trump will be allowed to play his hand is a question of how Trump values the Western alliance and whether the values of the arguments of democracy are to be adhered to.

Trump who has a special relationship with Putin has changed the values that have been underpinning the relationship between Europe and the United States. Powerful voices are arguing for an end to the NATO alliance, which has underpinned the Western alliance since the Second World War. But the argument whether the alliance will hold is also a question of how the European powers move to placate arguments that directly affect Western hegemony. But powerful voices are pushing for an end of the alliance and a concentration of US power within the United States.

There is an element of the demi-god in the way that Trump transacts his arguments, he is neither clear on the outcomes that he seeks or explains his arguments core outcomes. The ideas that Trump has been pushing have challenged the US traditional allies who had argued for a continuation of the free-market, where manufacturing was determined by choice, value and quality. The simplest argument is a realisation that Trump is pushing the United States into a singular entity and it is a question of mixing these arguments with political forthrightness that has empowered the voice of Trump. This means that Trump is mixing his arguments – he is neither fully concentrated on the war in Ukraine or the tariffs that he has placed on leading international markets.

To date the US markets have not really reacted to the reality on the ground and the failure of the United States arguments are that countries are holding the door open to US negotiators, who have not materialised in any shape or form. The element of brinkmanship, power and a downright hustle are at the forefront of Trump’s calculations, which is to project power and cause chaos on the elements that make up a nations inventory. This Trump has done to Ukraine, Canada, Mexico and China, the doors have been opened but the US negotiators are nowhere to be seen. This power dynamic is an old trick of the intelligence services, not so much a negotiated settlement, but   arguments of the course of a nations economy or national security until a nation backs down.

Dealing with Trump is not a rational way of doing business, the idiosyncrasy of his arguments means that he is in the position of being able to do business in the way that he wants to. There is nothing transactional in the way that Trump wants to do business, as he pointed out to Zelensky, the cards are not in his favour and he will hold onto all the cards until he is proven right, which means an end to US aid to Ukraine.

The era of diplomacy is over, the realisation that arguments that have come to the fore are not for the diplomat or the businessman, but a side hustle for the conman. In the chaos of Trump’s pronouncement that options have been put on the table – are in reality a set of arguments that the grand master of the hustle places on the table and how predictable he is. The sadness of the arguments coming from Trump is that he is not fully aware of of his hand, as the United States on a world stage makes up twenty four percent of the world economy. Though the United States leads the world in the development of technology, the US is wholly reliant on other nations manufacturing the elements that make up that technology.

Stock markets are the key to realising what Trump’s arguments contain and whether he realises the tariffs effectiveness. But the US and Europe’s exchanges are just as confused about the elements that make up the United States fiscal arguments. The US economy is bracing itself for an economy that moves into inflationary depression and though the stock market is not reflecting the outcome of these arguments, the markets are down a further one and half percent than they were before Trump’s pronouncements.

Vance has made his arguments clear, his Op-ed piece in the New York Times argued that Russia is a richer larger country and would always win the war in Ukraine. He argues that without US weapons the Ukrainians didn’t stand a hope. It is very much in the nature of Vance to change his mind about the war and political arguments. But the argument that Vance was an attack dog for the debacle of the Trump – Zelensky confirmation of the agreement is very much in the character of his behaviour recently. If as thought – the meeting was a set-up, there is a realisation that the US has no intention of signing the mineral agreement with the Ukrainian state and like any agreement with Trump, goal posts are moved continually, numbers are exaggerated and the tone of an agreement is determined by the con artist who manages the circus.

Carl Bildt, the former Swedish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister argues that the negotiation is upside down and that the pressure should have been put on Russia rather than Ukraine. The ideology of the Trump presidency is that there is more of a relationship between Putin and Trump than there is between Trump and Zelensky. In Bildt’s article he argues that the US has been pivoting towards China for sometime and that Europe is an after thought within the Congress and Senate. But the pivot has been more about the internal arguments within the United States and the ideology that is coursing through the government, which is a type of proto-facism that is delivering an authoritarian argument, that devalues liberal argument.

Whether Bildt is right about the pivot of US foreign affairs, Fiona Hill in a Brookings pod cast argues that it is all a bit late in Trump’s argument that he is trying to contain the conflict. The US siding with Iran, North Korea Russia and Belarus is a realisation that the US political alignment has changed, which challenges academics. The idea that the confrontation is not already a global confrontation is a miss, it is an argument of spheres of influence. However, countries such as China are re-imagining their relationship with Russia just as the United States are re-inventing their relationship with the West. But it is not so much the re-appraisal of the relationship that the United States has with the West, but the West’s ability to manage its relationship with alternative arguments. The doors to China have been opened to the Europeans, South Americans, Central Americans, Asian States and Africans, as the doors to the United States are closing. The inability of Vance et al to notice that the world is becoming less responsive to US arguments challenges the ability of Trump to continue with the diplomatic leanings of the US on their own initiatives.

But it is down to Trump’s inability to control the direction of the US that challenges the assertion that the US is trying to control an outcome in Ukraine, which challenges international hegemony, but it is the downright inability of Trump to realise that the world will turn on an axis rather than deal with his type of government. And though Vance argued on the Monday that negotiations can be put in place and that the United States had something to offer the Ukrainians, by the Tuesday Trump had closed the door to signing an agreement with the Ukrainians. The argument that you can do business with someone who challenges a negotiation in the last minute, challenges all the states that have to deal with a President and his administration that has no assets.