Unworkable Ukraine Peace Plans while Trump Advances Selective US Geopolitical Goals (Revised and Updated)
There are several important developments ongoing that have prompted me to write a brief update in advance of my next, customary post.
Two Unworkable Peace Plans
The Trump administration has paused the flow of arms to Ukraine and ordered a cessation of intelligence information, and has ordered or requested Britain to do thme same. The Daily Mail reports that British intelligence agencies and military outlets have been ordered not to share the US-generated intelligence which has previously been sent to Ukraine (known as Rel UKR).
An article in the Financial Times amplifies what this means for US “five eyes” intelligence allies namely, that they may pass on US intelligence on non-sensitive matters (e.g. that do not relate to targets for missiles) to their assets in Ukraine. This may put those assets at risk. Unguarded sharing of intelligence to Ukrainian authorities may constitute a major point of further friction between the US and Europe.
All will doubtless be a topic of conversation when both Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron arrive, again, in Washington later this week to present their promised “peace plan” for Ukraine.
Cessation of arms and intelligence to Ukraine has prompted a show of repentence by Zelenskiy and a show of willingness both to sign a mineral deal with the US (which is very much not in Ukraine’s interest) and to enter into negotiations with Russia.
Neither the Zelenskiy peace plan, nor the British and French peace plan will be sufficient, in my view, to bring Russia to the negotiation table.
Zel wants a peace process to unfold under the control of Donald Trump, starting with a release of prisoners and a truce in the skies, then involving uses of missiles, long range drones, attacks on eneregy and other civilian infrastructure, then followed by a truce at sea - if Russia will reciprocate. He wants to work quickly through these stages and then agree with the US a strong, final deal.
By this means, Zelenskiy is trying to weasel a way of keeping US skin in the game in some form of back-up (read “security guarantee”), which is precisely what Trump does not want. There is no reason that any sane interlocuter would trust Zelenskiy to concede anything that is not to his advantage.
The British and French plan, as though to confirm my doubts as to whether these Europeans are serious people, proposes a one-month truce at sea and in the air, but not involving combat troops. This of course allows Europe to build up weapons in Ukraine in preparation for a continuation of the war. The European leaders make the implausible claim that this will test Putin’s sincerity in keeping to the terms of a peace deal. According to the latest sources I can find, the peace plan would require a European peacekeeping force backed by a security guarantee from the US, the first of these things being illegal, and the second not wanted by the US.
The US pause in military aid delivery to Ukraine, if it is maintained, could cripple Ukraine’s military defense by summer, unless European aid can compensate for the departure of the US before that happens. Given limitations of European industrial capacity this seems improbable. Nonetheless Russia, short of any hope for real negotiation just yet, is likely to calculate that it must accelerate its military pressure right away while US support is dwindling, and European compensation has still to pick up. At the very least this would put Russia in the strongest possible position by the time, if there is ever such a time, Russia starts to negotiate - during a long period in which one can predict many stops and starts on the road to peace.
Germany
And as if to confirm my speculation about a more militarily “independent” Europe, one that is abandoned by the US and in which Germany reasserts its traditional, threatening stance, Germany’s new Chancellor, Merz, has announced a proposal for a major build-up of German military strength by removing current limits on borrowing for military expenditure. On first sight this will considerably increase the costs of borrowing in Germany. It will improve business for the armaments industry (in which German firms are likely to be principal beneficiaries). But this may make life difficult for other sectors of industry. Expenditure of non-military sectors will likely suffer.
Germany will already have to find an extra €30bn a year just to meet the current Nato target of 2% of GDP on defence, and security experts believe it will need to raise its target closer to 3%. Merz is talking of taking the brakes off borrowing for military purposes, beyond 1% of GDP and with no upper limit, in order to create funds predicted to amount to hundreds of billions of dollars. It is not clear at this time whether Merz’ proposal has any connection with Ursula von de Leyen’s proposal for an $841 billion fund to boost defences of EU nations to counter possible US disengagement. This massive “REARM Europe” package will be put to 27 EU leaders in Brussels this week where it will likely face opposition from, at least, Hungary and Slovakia and, perhaps, Italy and Austria.
But European delusion is hardly out of court. The current Finnish prime minister however, says that Russia knows only the language of force - in total and silly contradiction to the actual history of Russia and Finland since the Soviet Union defeated the Nazis in Finland, following which the Soviet Union supported Finnish democracy provided that it remained neutral, a policy that accounted for great Finnish prosperity in the ensuing period.
Iran
On the basis of anonymous sources, the New York Times reports that Russia has agreed to assist President Donald Trump’s administration in communicating with Iran on issues including the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme and its support for regional anti-US proxies. The matter was discussed between the US and Russia in Saudi Arabia. Neither Russia nor Iran have publicly confirmed or denied the request. A spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry, when asked if Russia had offered to mediate between Tehran and Washington, said it was “natural” for countries to offer their help.
There is speculation in the air that Washngton may be considering a relaxation of sanctions on both Russia and Iran, and it is not impossible that this relaxation is exercising significant leverage on what would otherwise be expected to be a demonstration of extreme caution by both Russia and Iran towards any such initiative from Washington which in the first Trump administration pulled the rug abruptly from under the JCPOA.
Nonetheless there is something implausible about all this. What exactly is the negotiation to be about if it is not in some way, and for the benefit of Israel, about weakening Iran’s already precarious defenses, albeit within the framework of a new Russian-Iranian partnership, against an Israeli attack?
A report in the Times of Israel claims to see Russian involvement as a threat to Israeli interest. That Trump made no reference in his speech to Congress on Tuesday to Iran (nor to China, except in the context of the Panama Canal, nor to North Korea) which may reflect a significant turn in US geopolitical assessments under Trump and/or a much stronger Trumpian focus on domestic issues. Perhaps Trump’s hostility to those US universities which, he claims, allow “illegal” protests against Israeli genocide of Palestinians, may be intended as a pacifier to Israel in what is becoming a fairly typical Trumpian tactic of lurching, first, in sudden support of or opposition to a cause that is celebrated on the political left or liberal class, and then, second, following up almost immediately with a lurch to support of or opposition to a cause that is celebrated on the political right or conservative class. This seems to function as a way of confusing his opponents and distracting their attention away from the things that Trump mainly cares about.
OPEC, Venezuela and Russia
OPEC meantime has agreed to increase oil production by 138,000 barrels per day in April. This may have the impact of lowering oil prices in the US at a time when, as a result of Trump tariffs on Canadian energy exports, there is an inflationary pressure on oil prices in the US. This also coincides with intensification of Trumpian intervention in Venezuelan politics and threats to further arrest Venezuelan exports of heavy crude oil to the US. The Trump administration on Tuesday gave Chevron 30 days to stop oil production in Venezuela after Washington accused President Nicolas Maduro of not making progress on electoral reforms and migrant returns. This measure has reversed a Biden-era license that allowed the oil giant to operate in Venezuela despite US sanctions. Compensation for such US discrimination againt Venezuela, other than OPEC increases in production, could come in the form of US imports of Russian oil amidst talk of lifting US sanctions on Russia.
The Trump hostility to Venezuela via his order to Chevron could remove 200,000 barrels a day from the global market, and could reduce Venezuela’s economy by as much as 7.5% this year.
Panama
In a move that likely responds to Trump’s ambition to pull Panama back more centrally to the US orbit of influence, the New York Times reports that an investment group led by BlackRock, a giant American asset manager, said it had agreed to buy two ports in Panama owned by Hong Kong conglomerate, CK Hutchison, for about $19 billion. The United States is the canal's largest user, accounting for about 70 percent of all traffic. The Times notes:
“Though Mr. Trump has other complaints about the canal — it charges too much, he contends — the deal greatly relieves pressure on Panama, political analysts said”.
Newsweek reports that the $23 billion deal, announced by Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings, transfers control of the Balboa and Cristobal ports to a consortium led by BlackRock, Global Infrastructure Partners, and Terminal Investment Limited.
“The deal follows increasing pressure from Washington to curb Chinese economic involvement in strategic infrastructure projects. In February, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio traveled to Panama, urging the country to distance itself from Beijing. Shortly afterward, Panama withdrew from China's Belt and Road Initiative.
“Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, has raised concerns about foreign control over the canal's key ports, arguing that China could use its position to restrict or monitor global trade flows”.
The transaction requires approval by Panama's government. It does not include an interest in a trust that operates ports in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, South China, or any other ports in China.