Are US Supremos Failing to Learn Lessons, or Maybe They’re Oblivious?

Top US officials and envoys are increasingly openly looking on Ukraine and Zelensky as being to blame for current international crises. At the same time, their statements and rhetoric are shifting positively towards Russia. This is not, simply, an anti-Ukrainian or pro-Russian shift. Nor is it necessarily pro-American. Rather, it is pro-establishment and pro-MAGA, ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. All of this is a serious mistake, regardless of the fact that Trump is not in the strongest position in the polls and the elections are fast approaching. Is American policy towards Ukraine and Russia credible in the eyes of American voters? Not necessarily. It may even seem absurd, but it is not a campaign issue. Do Americans understand the Russian threat at all, or do they simply perceive it differently?JOIN US ON TELEGRAMFollow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official. Over the past weeks and months, the Americans have eased sanctions on Belarus and Russia, including through the latest, much-discussed “Diesel Deal.” Easing sanctions on Russian oil is not a game changer when it comes to America’s fuel situation. At first glance, it looks like part of an initial effort to rebuild relations and establish trust. Yet, in doing so, America is voluntarily giving up the leverage it has over Russia. Can this be interpreted as forcing Ukraine into an unfavorable peace, or even capitulation? Indirectly, yes. Pressure on President Zelensky to step down, if it were hypothetically successful, could trigger massive political chaos and effectively make it impossible to hold elections in Ukraine. The question is whether this is obvious to the American administration and, if so, whether it has decided to abandon Ukraine – in the event Russia manages to win. Other Topics of Interest ‘Russia Russia Russia’ Was No Hoax It’s obvious that Trump behaves in all respects like a Russian asset. It’s time for a real Russia investigation This division of spheres of influence seems increasingly apparent with each new proposal to organize a Trump-Putin-Xi meeting. Russia consistently pursues its goals The Kremlin announced its plans long ago, through Putin himself, including in his 2007 Munich speech. The dictator’s proposed new Yalta should come as no surprise. He is consistently pursuing his objectives, enabled by the absence of genuine democratic processes in Russia. Unlike Western countries, he does not have to worry about elections or make any particular effort to win over voters. The gradual pursuit of goals announced almost two decades ago shows that Moscow operates on a much longer time horizon than the West. This is evident, for example, in the way Washington behaves towards the upcoming US midterm elections and the approaching electoral cycle in Europe. What are the Americans discussing with the Russians? Washington-Moscow talks are not solely about Ukraine, and the proposal for a US-China-Russia summit only reinforces this point. The first other subject that comes to mind is Iran and oil –the talks will certainly address these issues as well. There is undoubtedly also a question of trade and spheres of influence, particularly on NATO’s eastern flank. Russia has long sought to rebuild its influence and reduce the militarization of NATO’s eastern flank. Put bluntly, it wants to return de facto to the situation before 1997, when the alliance began expanding. The militarization of the region is not the result of aggressive plans by these countries, but a direct response to the threat posed by the Kremlin’s neo-imperial policy. Russia, however, understands that Trump alone cannot force Ukraine into radical concessions or, to put it bluntly, capitulation. Europe stands in the way, having taken on a significant share of the burden of assistance. Diplomatically, the EU and the UK are also capable of steering the US away from ideas about abandoning Ukraine. At the same time, the Americans are concerned about the future of the situation in Eastern Europe. This was expressed by top diplomat Marco Rubio himself, who said that the war could spread to other countries. This, in turn, could be interpreted as an the US drawing a red line for the Kremlin. Does this make sense? Paradoxically, yes. The Americans do not view the red line, the purchase of Russian oil and their position on supporting Ukraine as one single package, but rather as several separate issues. None of this should come as a surprise Trump provokes strong emotions, particularly because of his pro-Russian shifts and his distinctive style of public appearances. However, if we look at America’s approach to Ukraine and Russia since 1991, we can identify numerous events and twists that ran counter to Ukrainian independence. The first came even before Ukraine declared independence. On August 1, 1991, George H. W. Bush delivered what became known as the “Chicken Kyiv Speech” in Kyiv. The president simply miscalculated badly and warned Ukraine against independence. In 2005, Barack Obama, still a senator at the time, personally oversaw the process of disarming Ukraine in Donbas. Later, as president, he failed to respond particularly firmly to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and pursued a policy of warming relations with the Kremlin during his presidency. As president, Joe Biden did provide substantial support to Ukraine in 2022. However, before the invasion, he spoke of a potential Russian “minor incursion”, triggering a wave of criticism and forcing the then US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, to explain the remarks. None of this means that the US was consistently hostile to Ukraine from the very beginning. Biden provided enormous assistance. During his first presidency, Donald Trump supplied Ukraine with Javelin antitank missiles and actively opposed the construction of the two Nord Stream gas pipelines. One encouraging development in the current situation is that, at the recent Warsaw Security Forum, Alexus Grynkewich, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and commander of United States European Command (EUCOM), presented a theory of victory for the region. Its underlying approach is defensive, but unequivocal. The venue where it was announced was not accidental either. Grynkewich was, of course, not simply expressing his personal views, but presenting a position agreed upon with the Pentagon and the American administration. It is also worth noting that talks are underway on closer security cooperation between the US, Poland and Lithuania. There are no concrete details yet. The Americans simply continue to regard Russia as an important country, or even as an equal. Yet, given their inconsistency and naivety, it also seems that they do not understand Russia or President Vladimir Putin’s wider agenda. We can certainly expect continued pressure on Ukraine, although its intensity and dynamics may vary, as they have so far. Russia, in turn, periodically humiliates Trump diplomatically. Around the same time as the US president was saying that the Kremlin was not supporting Iran, the foreign ministers of Iran and Russia were talking about the countries’ very close cooperation. There are plenty of other examples. The inconsistency of American policy and its frequent shifts against NATO allies and Ukraine certainly do not make the US a credible partner. This is dangerous not only for America’s reputation, but also for the international security situation in at least several regions of the world. Even more concerning is that the administration doesn’t seem to understand these realities. The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.