In his book Tragic mind (The Tragic Mind, 2023), American strategist Robert Kaplan notes that “understanding world events begins with maps and ends with Shakespeare.” At first glance, it is difficult to see how reading maps or Shakespeare would help explain the striking fact that America and Germany have reversed roles when it comes to Russia.
US President Donald Trump's willingness to recognize the annexation of Crimea, prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and lift sanctions on Moscow looks like Washington's version of Eastern policy, West Germany's policy of détente towards its eastern half. All this is happening at a time when Berlin is rearming through huge investments in its defense sector, and Europe dreams of becoming a serious military power.
Is the US-German seat swap real or just some kind of Shakespearean disguise that will disappear by the end of the play? It is worth remembering that most Americans disapprove of Trump's stance on the war in Ukraine, and only a minority of Germans are actually prepared to fight for their country. Could Trump's peace proposal be anything more than a third extension of the Minsk agreements - that is, an ambiguity wrapped in mistrust and doomed to failure?
We have no reason to doubt that Trump is sincere in his determination to end this war. Although he drastically underestimates Ukraine's defense capacity, the fact is that a prolonged war would be a demographic disaster for the country. He may even be right to suggest that those who advocate additional sanctions on Russia and sending more weapons to Kiev are underestimating the risk of inadvertently entering a nuclear war.
Where Trump is wrong is in his understanding of the war in Ukraine as primarily a territorial dispute of little importance to the world outside Europe. Downplaying the geostrategic significance of this conflict represents a significant break with the policies of the previous US administration.
It is possible to imagine Biden willing to pressure Ukraine for territorial concessions, if that could bring peace or at least a long-term freeze on the conflict. Biden would also likely agree with Trump that the return of Crimea in the foreseeable future is not realistic. And, let's not forget, Biden never actually planned to invite Ukraine into NATO.
But there is one key difference: Biden would not accept recognition of the annexation of Crimea as a condition for ending the conflict. Other leaders understand that Ukraine’s national pride is essential, and that preserving its sense of moral victory is vital both to the country’s survival and to any future security architecture in Europe. If he had read more Shakespeare (I would suggest starting with the historical plays), Trump might have realized that while humiliating Ukraine might be the quickest (and cheapest) way to stop the war, it might not bring peace. Pride and sacrifice are the building blocks of any nation.
By praising Putin, adopting his narrative about the war, and promoting a peace agreement as a gift that would eventually be presented at the Victory Day celebrations in Moscow on May 9, Trump hopes to coax Russia into compromise.
But the latest signals from Moscow suggest that Putin is not seeking compromise, but victory. Even if Trump manages to stop the fighting, a temporary ceasefire in the absence of security guarantees risks triggering internal conflicts in Ukraine, which would be tantamount to suicide for both Kiev and Ukraine’s European allies. It could trigger a new wave of migration, which would threaten the political stability of European societies and deepen tensions between EU member states. It would also erode Europeans’ already shaky trust in American security guarantees.
The US-Ukrainian mineral resources agreement signed on April 23 could help Trump escape the trap he has found himself in. The US president can now increase pressure on Moscow, arguing that any further territorial grab would be a direct attack on America. And while Washington may have lost enthusiasm for defending its democratic allies, it is determined to defend its resources. But how likely is such a scenario?
One could argue that America’s Look East policy is a product of Washington’s shifting geopolitical priorities, but also one of Trump’s wild improvisations. It certainly has much more to do with China than with Europe. The goal of the new partnership between Moscow and Washington, forged over Ukraine, is to weaken Russia’s dependence on Beijing and win Russian support for American strategy in the Middle East and the Arctic—not to secure a stable future for Ukraine.
Whether you build your understanding of the world from reading maps and devising grand strategy, or from reading Shakespeare and contemplating human frailties and misjudgments, the current state of affairs undeniably signals one thing for Europe. The historical period that began with the reunification of Germany ends with the division of Ukraine.
(Financial Times; Peščanik.net, translation: M. Jovanović)
Bonus video:
