Ukraine and Israel on the eve of US isolationism

Δημοσίευση:

By Theocharis Chalyvopoulos

Introduction 

The awaited, historic turn on the long established bipartisan, interventionist foreign policy of the United States, because of Donald Trump’s return to the White House, will undoubtedly be a turning point in the development of the two ongoing wars at the heart of Europe and the Middle East. With the new American President’s ethnocentric and isolationist vision setting the tone for the government’s priorities for the next four years, the two strategic allies of the United States are now called upon to enter a new phase in their conflicts, while American military and economic support must be considered less of a given than ever. 

However, despite the pompous announcements regarding the United States’ disengagement from international conflicts, the approaches to the Russian-Ukrainian and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts are expected to be quite different from each other. 

NATO’S darkest hour

Starting from the European front, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was an awakening moment for the previously “brain-dead” North Atlantic alliance. The threat of war spreading deeper into European territory, especially into countries bordering Russia, highlighted the importance of American defense support in an emerging era of resolving interstate disputes on the basis of military force over diplomacy. The accession of two new members, Finland and Sweden, to NATO, was a direct consequence of the fears raised by Russian expansionism and refuted Russia’s initial expectations of challenging the unity of the Western camp.

Nonetheless, the expansion of NATO members from 30 to 32, its geostrategic importance for containing Russian aggression in Europe, as well as the objective budgetary benefit of the above developments for the American defense industry, did not seem to improve the 45th President’s initial “lukewarm” feelings towards the alliance.

During the 2024 election campaign and amidst the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict, Donald Trump stated:

“No, I would not protect you… In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.” (Trump, 2024).

This statement came to reaffirm Donald Trump’s feelings of distrust towards the alliance and, more importantly, his material rather than value-based commitment to the historic diplomatic and strategic ties that the United States has developed with Western countries. The former President’s dynamic restatement of his objections regarding the importance of the North Atlantic alliance and the benefits that the United States derives from its participation in it, acquire even greater weight in view of his second term, not only because of the ongoing war in Ukraine but also because of the expected government officials surrounding Donald Trump. The new government, in contrast to the first, is not expected to be staffed by experienced and traditional cadres of the Republican party, capable of taming the impulsive President, but with individuals who pledge their complete, personal submission to the President and his radical agenda.

The inability of European countries to ensure their military autonomy from the United States over the past four years, despite the repeated warning signs they received, leaves them exposed to new geopolitical threats, with Ukraine becoming the first test for the unity, commitment and strength of western Europe.

Ukraine: Sacrifices for peace

Despite the isolationist rhetoric, the then candidate and now President-elect, Donald Trump, was not naive in recognizing the need for American mediation in order to end the Russian-Ukrainian war. Setting an extremely ambitious timetable, he assured during the election campaign that if elected he would stop the war “within 24 hours” (Trump, 2024). The new President’s bold rhetoric, however, would likely be insufficient in bridging the chaotic rift between the two sides.  Despite statements by both Ukraine and Russia about their mutual desire to end the war, their proposed solutions cancel each other out.

Over time, President Trump’s roadmap for resolving the Ukrainian conflict has begun to crystallize and is justifiably causing concern on the Ukrainian side. Emphasis is now placed not on Ukraine’s victory in its struggle for territorial integrity but on the need for territorial concessions for the sake of a fragile, short-term peace.

Donald Trump has repeatedly blamed Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, for starting the war, while simultaneously criticizing the Biden administration for the economic and military support they provided to Ukraine, prolonging the war.

“I think Zelensky is one of the greatest salesmen I’ve ever seen. Every time he comes in, we give him $100 billion. Who else got that kind of money in history? There’s never been. And that doesn’t mean I don’t want to help him, because I feel very badly for those people. But he should never have let that war start.” (Trump, 2024). 

The rejection of the policy of “unconditional” support for Ukraine by the new Trump administration, automatically undermines Ukraine’s diplomatic strength, as it could never have resisted the Russian war machine without American and (to a lesser extent) European support. However, in the President’s view, tearing up what he perceives as a blank check towards Ukraine, is not simply aimed at serving the economic interests of the United States but at achieving a long-term peace plan.

The newly elected Vice President of the United States, JD Vance, led the effort as a senator to withhold military aid from Ukraine, voting against the related bill in the Senate while being clear about his beliefs concerning the necessity of concessions from Ukraine in order to end the bloodshed. Specifically:

“What’s in America’s best interest is to accept Ukraine is going to have to cede some territory to the Russians, and we need to bring this war to a close. When I think about the great human tragedy here, hundreds of thousands of eastern Europeans, innocent, have been killed in this conflict. The thing that’s in our interest and in theirs is to stop the killing.” (Vance, 2024).

His proposals, rejected by Volodymyr Zelensky as “too radical”, seem to have charmed Donald Trump, in his plan to prioritize American interests above all else. For both him and his Vice President, Ukraine is both responsible for and favored by the US in its conflict with Russia and  American moral commitments to the world cannot continue to shape US foreign policy.

Enjoying, in addition to control of the executive and the highest judicial branch, control of both houses of the legislature by a party that fanatically echoes his isolationist rhetoric, Donald Trump’s indifference to the prospect of Ukraine’s (further) territorial losses will have disastrous consequences for the country’s war efforts (even with further European support), with any peace agreement proposed involving major territorial concessions.

Israel: A notable exception 

The close strategic relationship between Israel and the United States, far from being questioned, entered a new period of flourishing during Donald Trump’s first term in office. The choice to move the United States embassy to Jerusalem and the de facto recognition of the holy city as the capital of the Jewish state, surprised allies and opponents alike as it came in complete contrast to the United States’ previous policy of impartiality towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The fervor with which the first Trump administration supported Israel was a decisive factor in the subsequent signing of the Abraham Accords, with which two Arab states, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, recognized Israel’s sovereign rights, sending a hopeful message for the normalization of relations between them. For the United States to choose a side in the conflict rather than assume a mediating role, was a clear message for many Middle Eastern states that they must now come to terms with the reality of Israel’s existence in the region and abandon Islamic solidarity towards the Palestinians, prioritizing their geopolitical and economic interests.

After Hamas’ terrorist attacks against Israel and the military conflict that followed, Donald Trump, as a presidential candidate, was still clear about his support for Israel and the need for the Israeli government to “finish what it started” (Trump, 2024).

The President-elect’s quick announcement of the new US ambassador to Israel, came to dispel any doubts about the direction the new government will follow regarding the war and its relations with the Israeli government.

Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas and soon to be top American diplomat in Israel, is among the most ardent supporters of Israeli demands.

Among other things, the new ambassador has declared his opposition to a “two-state” solution, supporting the recognition of Western Gaza as part of Israeli territory while at the same time not recognizing the term “Palestinian” for the descendants of the Arab populations who lived in British-controlled Palestine.

The appointment of the self-described “unapologetic, unreformed Zionist” Mike Huckabee as a channel of communication between the American government and the Israeli state is therefore a first declaration of confidence by Donald Trump in the Israeli government, in the midst of its aggressive war effort in Gaza. This is a move that breaks from the cautious (at least on a rhetorical level) support provided by the Biden administration, as well as the general safe distance that the US has traditionally maintained from Israeli handling of the Palestinian issue.

Conclusions 

Donald Trump’s re-election marks the beginning of a presidential term unlike any other in modern American political history. The President’s characteristic political and ideological unconventionality, which, unlike his first term, is expected to reflect rather than clash with members of the administration or the legislature, is set to overturn decades of entrenched dogmas and taboos in the conduct of American foreign policy, in a period of monumental geopolitical upheaval.

The more than ever needed US leadership to guide the Western world out of insecurity and global instability will be difficulty provided by an increasingly isolationist America. Western alliances (and the United States’ commitment to them) are expected to be tested to an unprecedented degree, confronting Western countries with the unpleasant reality of their military and defense inadequacy. 

Ukraine will be called upon to rely more on Europe for support of its war effort while Europe’s willingness must not be taken for granted given its frail economic state, internal social tensions and rising anti-interventionist (and in some cases openly pro-Russian) chauvinists.

For Israel, American interest does not seem to be waning. On the contrary, the new President’s early political choices and statements show greater confidence in the Israeli government, which implies greater flexibility in its military operations. Israel’s equipment and financial support do not seem to be threatened by the new President’s ethnocentric doctrine, while any “humanitarian” objections expressed by western liberal cycles pale in comparison to the intentions for the fastest (and to Israel’s benefit) end of the war.

In conclusion, Donald Trump’s goal, according to him, is the immediate ending of active wars, with little interest in which side will prevail. The United States’ interest is expected to shift towards economic competition with China in the battle for economic hegemony in the international stage.

The US is no longer a given ally, traditional alliances are beginning to dissolve, and the emergence of new conflicts seems more likely in a period where military resolution of interstate disputes seems to be gaining ground over diplomatic dialogue.

References

For further reading