I’ve seen some discussion on social media that has suggested there is nothing wrong with Donald Trump’s approach to Ukraine.
The argument is that first of all, Ukraine is nothing to do with the US which has no responsibility towards this European country. Second, that Trump is the first person attempting to get people to the negotiating table. Third, whilst a dismembered Ukraine is less than ideal, we have to be realistic and accept this as necessary for peace. Let’s deal with each in turn.
First, what responsibilities and obligations do the US have to Ukraine? The answer is that at Budapest, the US, UK, France, China and Russia all committed to guarantee Ukraine’s defence in return for Ukraine relinquishing Nuclear Weapons.
However, not only is Trump refusing to take on specific responsibilities to defend Ukraine, he is going further the other way. He has sought to profit through exploiting Ukraine’s mineral resources. He has launched personal attacks on President Zelenski and he has parroted Russian propaganda about who started the war. He is promoting a settlement where Russia continues to occupy significant proportions of Ukraine.
Secondly, it is impossible to argue that Trump is bringing people to the table and getting them talking when the main party to peace talks, Ukraine has been excluded. In any case Ukraine has made previous attempts at negotiation.
Thirdly, the idea that we must just accept Russia’s occupation as “real-politik” is scandalous. Ask yourself, would it have been acceptable in the 1940s for Roosevelt to negotiate with Hitler, leaving him in possession of most of Western Europe? Furthermore, what if he had attacked Churchill personally and demanded that he called an election or claimed that he had started the war. Would that have been acceptable? Would that US accept the annexation of Alaska by a foreign power? What if that foreign power has bombed Washington and marched right on the Capitol but was now pushed back though still occupying California, Texas and Arizona? Or what if Margaret Thatcher had accepted the counsel in 1982 that real-politik demanded she accept the loss of the Falklands?
What happens if Putin succeeds in Ukraine? You see, under this settlement he would achieve many if his aims? The answer is that he moves on from there emboldened. He begins to threaten the Baltic states and Moldova. It means he continues through state terrorism, nuclear threats and the presence of aircraft and ships in Western nation’s airspace and waters, to threaten western Europe.
I might also add that if Putin wins, it emboldens Trump in his own use of economic means to pressure and intimidate Canada. It encourages him to press in with his demands over Greenland and the Panama Canal. Of course it also sends China a message about Taiwan. We have a new world order and not a good one.
What is wrong with all this? Well I keep coming back to Obadiah 10-14. We see a situation where the US has moved from being Ukraine’s ally to standing aloof and I would argue is moving further, seeking to take advantage of the violence against Ukraine. Whilst Obadiah isn’t specifically about 21st Century International Law and politics, it does give us a clear picture of how God sees such behaviour. We cannot be complicit with violence for our own gain.
Faithroots 