Things have turned full circle after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and more than three years of war. It makes for an interesting study in international relations or diplomacy and its cold realities, an area I comment on regularly on this page as one with a political science background. Ukraine started out seeking closer ties with Europe following the ousting of its previous pro-Russian president. Ukraine wanted to be a member of the military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Former US leaders and European leaders agreed and set a process in motion. Russia warned against this and annexed Crimea from Ukraine so as to have strategic access to the Black Sea far south.
Russia further warned of war as NATO continued to work towards Ukraine’s membership. Then it launched a full invasion of Ukraine three years ago, which I had condemned several times. NATO members assisted Ukraine and continued to promise membership. Now the current US President, Donald Trump, says Ukraine cannot be a member, it must talk peace, and be ready to lose 20 per cent of its land to Russia. The matter developed such that President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine exchanged heated words in the White House, with Trump saying Ukraine’s leader would have no country left if he did not talk peace now.
After a meeting of NATO leaders where they said they stood with Ukraine, but they would still need the US if they must support Ukraine’s war efforts, Zelensky said his nation was ready for peace talks. It was then agreed that the US and Ukraine officials would meet in Saudi Arabia for talks. The talks would include the signing of a mineral deal, a transactional arrangement to pay for US aid given to Ukraine, as well as to attract further US support for Ukraine. So, the circle is complete – moving from war to talking peace. There are colours and different hues to this diplomacy of war and peace, particularly as engaged in by the current US President.
I take note of them against the backdrop of some of the submissions I made on this page in recent years regarding internal politics and how it links with international relations. Some submissions were outcomes of my observations, while others were responses to comments made by others. Here, I call attention to a few points by looking at the actions of the current occupant of the White House as they concern the war in Ukraine. I have submitted in several pieces here that institutions do not define themselves. People who work there define them, determining whether such institutions are strong or weak. Moments come in history when the actions of leaders impact their institutions and nations such that these become reference points. For instance, we know US presidents whose actions – internally and externally – are landmarks in the defining of the office and its powers. By my estimation, Trump is turning out to be one of them, and the Russia-Ukraine war is his chessboard.
Lately, observers have mentioned that Trump was changing the face of the US and the Western world’s diplomacy. They add that his action is changing the international order. Note, though, that Trump does not rewrite the powers of the US president. He exercises the same constitutionally allotted powers, using them the way his predecessors possibly did not. That is one way political leaders define, redefine, strengthen, and attract respect for their office, something I believe Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu has done through some of his policies and executive orders since he arrived in office. If the actions these political leaders take are interpreted from the prism of emotion and political bias by anyone, it should not be students of political science or international relations. By training, we see these things across eras. We see international orders changing at intervals, and it is not the regular leaders who lead the process.
For instance, the 17th century Treaty of Westphalia in Europe ended a 30-year war and introduced a new order. Napoleon’s wars influenced new alliances. The end of World War 1 and WW2 changed an order. So, what drives Trump’s actions, which some see as changing the global order? He says he wants the best for his nation and people first. He wants to change the narrative of other nations taking more than the US gets in return. He wants what America gets from its relations with other nations to benefit Americans, whom he believes need it. Primarily, he wants to fulfil the promises he made to voters who sent him to the White House. This illustrates my past submission that politics and governance flow into each other, unlike the submission by some in Nigeria who often assert, “Politics has ended, and it is time to govern.”
In reality, there is no such clear dichotomy. What transpires during election campaigns guides what the winner does in office. In relating to other nations, what happens internally influences as well. National interest. It drives how nations behave in the manner they do. I agree with Trump regarding his focus on the interest of his nation and the assumptions that drive his approach, even as I have differing views on a few other issues. Nonetheless, from what he says publicly, I can see that there are no differing views from critics that the US president is not conscious of. I see that his actions are consciously taken, doing what his voters desire he does.
My reading is that Trump wants to, by any means possible, get more for his country; he wants a trajectory different from previous situations that he considers parasitic. Every political leader talks like he wants nothing in return. But Trump, the businessman, openly shows that national interest – what is in it for us – is the basis of most interactions on the international stage. So, he wants Ukraine to talk peace at any cost, one reason being that the war costs the US so much. It is a promise he made to voters. In his determination to fulfil that promise, the heated exchange between him and Zelensky in the White House happened. Then, everyone backpedals and wants to amend relations. This illustrates a few things.
One, and I explained this on this page, diplomacy is a tough job, not the all-fine-suits and smiles choreographed for TV cameras that we often see. Soldiers shoot to settle issues, diplomats sometimes engage in shouting bouts behind closed doors. That heated exchange between Trump and Zelensky is an example. The more important angle the exchange in the White House brings out is that if your nation is Ukraine in this kind of war episode, it can’t conduct itself as though it’s America. A nation is as powerful on the battlefield as its internal strengths. The same influences its negotiating power in diplomatic circles.
I have supported Ukraine since this war began. But mid-February, after the US announced it was meeting with Russia in Saudi Arabia, leaving Ukraine out in the cold, I submitted thus online: “Ukraine is told it cannot join NATO, and would not get its 20 per cent seized territories back from Russia. It is a challenge when any nation depends on others in this kind of situation. On the international stage, you get a better part of the pie mainly when your nation operates from a position of independence and strength. So, what should Ukraine do? Accept the end of this war, settle to rebuild, and rebuild strategically and strongly, targeting aspects where the Kremlin would need its assistance one day in the post-Putin years. The return of its seized territories could then be Kyiv’s minimum demand. Internal and external fluidity happens to even the strongest of nations. Ukraine could wait for its opportunity.”
Would the US continue supporting Ukraine to fight after a possible mineral deal is struck after it accused Ukraine of wanting to precipitate WW3? The situation does not look tidy from Ukraine’s standpoint anymore. A nation that depends on others to defend itself cannot dictate to its helpers. We should not forget too that many factors inform the extent to which nations assist others, like European nations that still depend on gas from Russia. And there are the popular wishes of voters at home. Politicians can be punished at the ballot. So, from where the effort to warm back to each other is between the US and Ukraine’s political leadership, Zelensky should get the best support that the US wants to offer. Then, Ukrainians should consider my mid-February advice.
