UNDERSTANDING THE NEW AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS SOUTH AFRICA AND UKRAINE

ABSTRACT: American President Donald Trump is implementing a new foreign policy towards South Africa. His recent policy pivot regarding Ukraine and Russia reflects his broader goals, providing context for South Africans to comprehend whether his actions are merely those of an impulsive buffoon (as some allege) or part of a carefully thought-through new strategic direction being expertly implemented for maximum impact. Understanding the new American foreign policy towards South Africa and Ukraine is hugely important for the relevant governments and affected citizens.

FOCUS KEYWORD: New American foreign policy towards South Africa and Ukraine

KEYWORDS: USA foreign policy, Donald Trump, South Africa USA relations, Ukraine war, Russia, Vladimir Putin, Volodimir Zelenskyy

South Africa and Ukraine are finding themselves confronted by a distinctly new American foreign policy, under the 2^nd Trump administration. For the two governments concerned, as well as for individual citizens who need to make important decisions, it is essential to understand what is really driving this revised U.S. approach. 

Is it the irrational, impulsive behaviour of an erratic, egomaniacal fascist, as Trump’s political opponents allege? Or is there actually a thought-out, clear new U.S. national security strategy at work, which needs to be recognised and understood?

What needs, therefore, to be dispassionately assessed is whether all that we now see playing out (as unexpected and as rapidly being implemented as it is) does not in fact present proof of a coldly realist new American appreciation of the true power realities of today’s world? (In other words, rather than it being symptomatic of idiosyncratic, mercurial behaviour?).

It is evident that correctly understanding the Trump team’s recent actions and the motivations behind it, is vitally important for South Africans, Ukrainians, Europeans – for practically all of humanity – because of the impact that the United States can have on the fate of governments and peoples. “Afrikaners” want to understand where their best interests lie, Ukrainians in the trenches want to know if they must settle or die.

This is what we will, in this analysis, try and clarify…

What we will show is that there is factual evidence for, as well as reasoned logic to support the view that what we are seeing now from the 2^nd Trump administration, is indeed a thoroughly thought-through “back to basics” strategy, founded upon a sober assessment and recognition of the practical realities that apply today in the new international geopolitical power-equation. The current international balance of power rapidly evolved in recent years due to fundamental changes which have occurred in the underlaying economic, diplomatic and military determinants.  Changes that have decisively left behind the earlier status quo (as had pertained in the years after the fall of the Soviet Union), in which the USA was indisputably the sole superpower…

The Trump team’s apparent comprehension of this fundamentally changed reality seems to have led them to a distinctly new national security strategy, decidedly different from that of their predecessors. A strategy which we now see being purposefully implemented in a systematically coordinated, internally consistent manner, all within the briefest of timeframes. This, logically, can only signify that it has been meticulously pre-planned, and also that it has been broadly bought into by the key members of Trump’s national security team – not this past week, but already during numerous planning sessions at Mar-a-Lago in the run-up to Trump’s inauguration.

Introducing this new strategy onto the world stage has been deliberately done at warp speed in an uncharacteristically assertive, intentionally disruptive manner aimed at achieving highest immediate impact, leaving much of the audience initially bewildered.

Of course, it is in many ways less disturbing for people at the receiving end to opt to see (wishfully?) what is happening now as merely a time-limited aberration. As the impulsive gyrations of a madman. Many would rather cling to this palliative, than to potentially have to acknowledge to themselves that – at least from the perspective of the new administration in the USA – there does in fact exist imperatives and logic that demanded urgent adjustment of over-arching American national security strategy. Even to the extent of adjusting previously bedrock alliances.

These are new imperatives deemed by the Trumpists to represent an existential threat to the vital economic and security interests of the USA. Which has resulted in a new Trumpian view of reality that, in itself, does provide a logical explanation for the drastic overhaul of American national security strategy now under way. Understanding this new threat assessment now permeating Trumpian thinking (whether one agrees with it or not) should make any clinging to the palliative of seeing Trump’s actions as mere manifestations of ego-driven impulsiveness, an intellectually untenable position for the rest of us to try and maintain…

Intelligence analysts are trained to detachedly step into the shoes (and worldview) of the party being assessed, in order to try and accurately discern the reasoning and true motives behind their actions. Applying this method to the Trump team, one cannot do otherwise than to recognise in their recent actions – marked as these were by a roll-out that was well-coordinated, perfectly programmed and carefully calibrated as to tonality and the subject-matter allocated to each individual messenger to present – that there had to have been detailed advance planning and complete prior buy-in on the part of the entire national security team.  

It is when that realisation (of their careful, multi-faceted planning and ruthlessly purposeful implementation) hits home, that the seriousness of the situation for those at the receiving end, becomes inescapable.

What is not new, is that all these moves were playing out against a backdrop of intense informational warfare, with copious amounts of ideological and party-political spin being dished up by the “for” and “against” media. Also, of course, by politicians and analysts across the world who occupy positions at various points along an inevitably very broad spectrum of quite distinct own interests – given that U.S. policy affect so many around the globe.

To arrive at a valid intelligence-style assessment regarding what is really going on, one must, therefore, firstly set aside all of one’s own emotional and ideological preferences and prejudices. What is called for is coldly logical, fact-based analysis, not tainted by what one’s own values may (rightly or wrongly) incline one to feel about Trump the man and his policies.

What then, as South Africans, to make of the true reasons and objectives behind Trump’s recent Executive Order targeting South Africa? Is this just a fleeting, free-standing part of a passing parade of attention-seeking mediatic actions? Is Trump engaged in an honest attempt to serve the best interests of South Africans, or is South Africa merely a pawn being moved (sacrificed?) for the overall strategic benefit of the USA in a much broader geopolitical game of chess?

Because of the fact that we are still in the very early days of the new Trump administration, there isn’t as yet (at first glance) that much of a broader context available against which to assess individual actions specifically targeting South Africa, such as the recent Executive Order ostensibly about land expropriation and Gaza.

However, a much clearer picture is rapidly emerging regarding Russia and Ukraine, so that the South Africa question can be answered by analysing what has lately been happening, in parallel, regarding that other conflict. Because the recent flurry of headline-grabbing actions on Ukraine by Trump and his senior security officials demonstrate a clear chain of globe-spanning thought and intent, in what can only be viewed as a pre-planned strategy now being implemented in carefully coordinated manner to influence many more parties across the world than just Ukrainians or South Africans.

A new strategy aimed at making examples, setting up certain parties for a fall, deliberately baiting and entrapping others, confronting all and sundry with hitherto un-voiced reality – all designed to overturn pre-existing narratives and perceptions, thereby allowing for a new security policy perspective to take hold among American voters, among its allies, neutrals and competitors alike…

Thus, as regards Ukraine we are witnessing the roll-out of a carefully thought-out new strategy, which is expertly being executed sequentially across a broad front by a substantial number of key players acting in sync with one another – thereby giving the lie to any notion of erratic impulsiveness.

What the Trump team’s actions on Ukraine does reflect is that their new strategy is based upon a fundamentally different underlying worldview, compared to that held by the previous administration. With, furthermore, an un-accustomed level of plain-speaking assertiveness and ruthless pursuit of own interest on the part of those now in charge of American national security policy, when they implement what they believe to be an urgently necessary pivot.

What we will show in this analysis, is that the recent actions against South Africa are part of the same re-positioning and assertive methodology that we are now seeing regarding the conflict in Ukraine. The actions on South Africa and with regard to Ukraine stem from and are being driven by the same fundamental national security threat assessment that is shaping the Trumpian worldview. Understanding that truth, will help one to comprehend from where unexpected, seemingly strange measures such as apparently coming to the aid of “Afrikaner refugees” actually emanate, as well as what such measures are actually intended to achieve (for the benefit of the USA in its global quest, rather than for Afrikaners as such).

Three years ago, within days of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, NONGQAI published an intelligence assessment which warned that this is going to be a long-drawn-out conflict that would likely cement in place fundamental shifts in the geo-political power equation in the world. We also then pointed out that, even though the battles were raging in eastern Ukraine, this was not primarily a conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

What we stressed was that this was just a new phase in a decades-old power rivalry of which the principal protagonists were in fact the Neocon faction in Washington DC versus the Putinists in Moscow, with eastern Ukraine being the chess-board upon which it happened to be playing out.

A decade-old struggle that had in fact manifested not only in Ukraine, but also in places such as Georgia, Belorussia, Moldova/Transnistria and within the Russian Federation itself. A struggle for dominance in Eurasia, with a covert American strategy that indisputably had been deliberately initiated by the Neocons. A strategy developed and promoted by them, of trying to stress Russia by “over-extending and unbalancing” it, through covert destabilisation activities burdening it with unbearable costs, i.a. by exploiting ethnic nationalisms through fostering and funding so-called “colour revolutions”. This strategy had as its aim to fragment the Russian Federation and its neighbours into more manageable, Western-aligned parts. (See, for example, Rand Corporation, 2019: “This brief summarizes a report that comprehensively examines nonviolent, cost imposing options that the United States and its allies could pursue across economic, political, and military areas to stress —overextend and unbalance — Russia’s economy and armed forces and the regime’s political standing at home and abroad.”).

We also set out already in February 2022 our doubts as to whether the foundational assumptions being made by the Neocons, would prove to be valid – as regards the alleged vulnerability of the Russian economy to Western sanctions, the supposed weakness of the Russian armed forces (“fighting with shovels”), the anticipated universal diplomatic condemnation of the Russian Federation (with the entire world assumedly going to align with Washington against Moscow), and the averred fragility of the Russian state and society (which we were told were at the point of disintegrating…).

Without taking up too much space here to pat ourselves on the back, it is fair to say that all our predictions of February 2022 have come true.

Soon enough after the start of the invasion it had become apparent that Russia was set on waging a long-term war of attrition, aimed at fundamentally weakening the nationalist government in Kyiv and to cause as much economic harm as possible to Ukraine’s NATO suppliers. Such an attrition strategy had been a logical one for Russia to choose, given all the proof – across the many Neocon-inspired wars since the end of the 2^nd World War – that the USA and the West simply does not have the stomach, stamina, nor the attention span necessary to win drawn-out wars of attrition.

It secondly became clear that Russia’s economy was in fact more than capable of resisting Western sanctions (with the help of China and other leading world economies that declined to join the sanctions regime), so that Europe actually suffered more economic harm than Russia (today it is importing significantly more Russian petroleum products than before the invasion – but now paying considerably more for it, in order to camouflage their evasion of their own sanctions).

As regards the supposed incompetence of the Russian armed forces, the unstoppable advances of the Russians on the battlefield since the failure of Ukraine’s 2023 summer offensive have made it patently clear that there can be only one possible winner if this war is allowed to drag on, and that it won’t be Ukraine and its Western backers. With every passing day, the eventual extent of the defeat that will inevitably be suffered by Ukraine (and by logical extension, its Western backers) grows ever larger.

Diplomatically, Russia has also been able to turn the tables on the West, with the Global South increasingly allying itself with Russia against what it perceives as Western imperialism. As a telling example, BRICS is steadily expanding, now totalling ten full members and nine partner nations. On the other hand, the NATO alliance itself has become visibly less united and less motivated (suffering from war donor and refugee care fatigue) with most of its important member states now being internally riven by strongly opposing political factions due to the rise of right-wing parties, so that the liberal/woke consensus of earlier no longer reigns unchallenged.

Within the Russian Federation itself, as well as within its satellites, the war has had a strong unifying effect leaving Putin as undisputed leader and making it highly unlikely that the federation itself can be broken up through continued covert action, nor can Putin’s allies in places such as Georgia and Belorussia be easily overthrown now by colour revolutions.

In brief, measured in terms of the Neocon’s own stated objectives, the conflict in Ukraine has turned out to be an abject failure. Every passing new day is likely to bring just more damage to the international standing of the West, to Western economies, and to the West’s own internal cohesion and the political survival of Europe’s own ruling elites.

To understand this, a brief account of the relevant history is helpful. Ever since Gorbachev in 1990 had been negotiating the reunification of Germany with the USA’s then Secretary of State James Baker, the Russians had been suggesting that they be allowed to join NATO (Baker, at that stage, had promised that NATO would not encroach one inch nearer to the Russian border). This Russian suggestion had been repeated in later years by other Russian leaders such as Yeltsin and continued up to when Putin also had suggested it to Clinton during a one-on-one meeting one evening in 2000, when Clinton visited Moscow that year. Clinton had initially welcomed it, but the next morning had informed Putin that his advisers had told him that such a step would not be possible. At that time Clinton’s Neocon-guided administration sat atop a unipolar world, dominated by the USA.

As a logical corollary to that decision to reject Russian overtures and instead set up Moscow once again as adversary, the Neocons then developed their strategy to begin baiting Moscow in order to over-burden and eventually fragment the Russian Federation into pliable parts, which could subsequently be “taken over” by the USA in order to contain China by means of geographical encirclement. This strategy evidently posed an existential threat to Putin’s government and had as inevitable consequence to alienate Putin from the West and push him into the arms of China.

This destabilisation strategy initially appeared to be working, with the successful 2014 “Maidan” coup in Kyiv and especially when large pro-Western demonstrations in strategically vital Belorussia were stoked on in 2020/21. The strategy thus worked, till the moment that Putin did the unexpected and called the Neocons’ bluff at the end of 2021 through threatening a full-scale conventional military invasion of eastern Ukraine.

Instead of then settling and preserving their wins, the hubristic Neocons chose to up the ante, believing that Russia was “just a petrol station armed with nuclear bombs” and that any Russian invasion would be bound to fail militarily. Consequently, that an invasion would actually foster the collapse of the Russian economy under Western pressure, followed then by an uprising against Putin and his allies by the Russians population and by ethnic minorities in the Federation as well as in neighbouring states. 

Putin went ahead and invaded, and the Neocons pushed to Ukraine as much money and military means as the West had available, also imposing the most comprehensive economic sanctions ever seen. Despite all this, the fact that things did not turn out as the Neocons had expected is now clear, as described earlier (which is not dissimilar to how most of their other “never-ending wars” in fact had turned out, with results contrary to their expectations).  

These military debacles in Iraq, in Afghanistan and now in Ukraine, together with the decline in Western industrial capacity that resulted from the parallel Neocon policy of abetting China’s rise to becoming the factory of the world, have caused Trump to conclude that what the Neocons and their liberal-woke “deep state” allies have actually wrought is to convert the once unipolar world formerly dominated by the USA into now a distinctly bipolar one – with a diminished USA as its one (shrinking) pole and with China, Russia and their allies as the surging other pole.

To understand what to expect from the second Trump administration, one must accept that the Trumpian analysis of the threat faced by the USA today is accurately reflected in Trump’s often-repeated statements that his country is in dire straits, needing to be saved; that the USA is no longer great and needs to be made great again. These statements, in their minds, are not just mere populist political slogans but reflect the Trumpists’ fundamental understanding of the seriously challenging geo-strategic realities they now face. A reality which they attribute to what they see as dumb strategies which their archenemies in the Deep State, influenced by Neocon thinking (funded by the military-industrial complex) and by a liberal/woke establishment had foisted upon America.

The fact that the conflict now playing out in Ukraine is the result not merely of Putin having gotten it into his head, “unprovoked”, to invade has been publicly acknowledged by many world leaders, including the Pope. Washington’s deliberate strategy to “overburden and unbalance” Russia, inspired by Neocon thinking, clearly had played an equally blameworthy role leading up to the 2022 invasion. No matter the oft-repeated Anglo media mantra of Russia’s “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine, this is not accepted in the better part of the rest of the world, because quite clearly it had been the avowed strategy of the Neocons to indeed provoke Russia in order to entice it to over-extend itself (with the Neocons not anticipating, though, that Russia would call their bluff by going full kinetic and invade).

Furthermore, it has not gone by unnoticed in the rest of the world that Western leaders such as Angela Merkel have recently publicly admitted to the fact that the West had not been honest peacemakers in that they actually had worked to ensure that the preceding Minsk I & II peace accords failed, deliberately using them instead to gain time to arm Ukraine and to instigate further regional destabilisation through “colour revolutions”.

It is also common knowledge among world leaders that the draft Istanbul peace accord (reached in principle between Ukraine and Russia, shortly after the 2022 invasion started) was deliberately torpedoed by the Anglo-led Western Alliance when Boris Johnson on behalf of the USA and UK prevailed upon Zelenskyy to rather fight than to make peace. Also, the world is aware of how initial “waverers” such as Germany were forcibly brought into line, i.a. by blowing up the Nordstream gas pipeline…

What is now critically important (in terms of the political dynamics now facing Trump) is that he has a very limited time window in which to fundamentally change the USA’s relationship with Russia whilst credibly being able to blame the mess he inherited on his predecessors – if he allows the war to continue and if he keeps on rendering military and financial aid to Ukraine, he risks very soon owning the situation. Furthermore, he faces the reality that with every passing day, the extent of the inevitable eventual defeat just grows visibly larger and larger…

The most important considerations facing Trump, however, are the global geostrategic realities that pertain to future competition for economic, diplomatic and military primacy.  This global contest is the “main thing” that primarily informs all of Trump’s decision-making, whether it be on Ukraine or regarding South Africa. As businessman, he knows the importance of keeping a close eye on one’s competitors, and conversely, on one’s own competitiveness. He also knows the importance of staying focused on the “main thing”, by not allowing policymaking to become merely a series of reactive exercises in putting out fires as they inevitably pop up, here, there and everywhere. Just as any enterprise needs to have a well-conceived, reality-based business plan, so must a state have a clear, pro-active plan and implementation strategy in order to survive and prosper in the ever more competitive international environment.

As is often the case in business, he also understands that some investments (such as the failed Neocon strategy) do not perform as expected, which then need to be terminated as quickly as possible so as not to throw good money after bad.

Also as in business, Trump furthermore comprehends that national security planning and strategy need to be driven by hard practical empirical reality, and not by ideological preferences, feel-good posturing or wishful thinking.

What then constitutes the hard, factual reality today that any president of the USA (Trump, as it now is – or, for that matter, whoever else it may have ended up being) needs to consider when deciding on national security strategy?

Above all, it is the reality of the rapid rise of China, the relative decline of the West’s military, economic and diplomatic power, and the increasing isolation of the latter as the Global South start to structure and organise themselves.

As a corollary to China’s own ascent there is also the rise of BRICS as counterweight to the G7/NATO, and – potentially the most consequential – the threat which this new economic partnership may pose to the survival of the US Dollar as the unchallenged reserve currency of the world. Because, with the USA’s national debt about to reach $38 trillion, the consequences for the American economy should the dollar lose its reserve status, would be dire indeed.

To judge whether Trump’s recent actions are the consequence of him living in a “disinformation space”, or whether he – on the contrary – understands unvarnished reality and is rationally attempting to do (by his lights) what overriding U.S. national interest now urgently demand of him, let us look at some pertinent facts about the competitive environment in which he finds himself.

Looking at world economic history, one sees that for centuries the two economies that far and away dominated all others on the planet in terms of size, were those of China and India. This lasted up to the 19^th century, when European imperial conquest (temporarily) overturned the tables. However, historical imperatives now seem to be reasserting themselves.

The land area of China is two per cent larger than that of the USA. The Chinese population is some four times as large as that of the USA.

Education: Chinese youth increasingly overshadow their American counterparts in educational achievement, with China for decades now heading up the PISA international educational metrics surveys regarding literacy, science and mathematics – and leading by some margin, at that – whilst the USA languishes below the OECD achievement average. The last pre-Covid PISA survey had PRC Chinese 15-year-olds scoring an astonishing 49 points higher in science than the second-placed country (Singapore), 22 points higher in Mathematics, and 6 points higher in Literacy.  The averaged overall PISA rankings were: China #1 at 578.7; Singapore #2 at 556.3; Macao China #3 at 542.3; Hong Kong China #4 at 530.7; and, the USA #25 at 495. (In 2022, 21% of adults in the US were completely illiterate, 54% of adults had a literacy level below 6th grade level, and 45 million of adults in the U.S. were functionally illiterate and read below a 5th grade level).

Patents: Chinese inventors in 2023 filed around 1.64 million patent applications to the international patent registration agency. Second was the USA, which reported less than a third of that figure, at a total of 518,364 applications. Japanese innovators had filed a total of 414,413 patent applications, with South Koreans responsible for 287,954 filings, and Germany,133,053 applications. Chinese innovators had thus in 2023 filed 17.45% more international patent applications than the next four countries combined…

Size of national economies: In terms of the true comparative sizes of the world’s top ten economies (as measured by purchase power parity of their respective currencies) the world ranking is as follows:

#1 *China  $37.1T;    #2 USA  $29.2T;    #3 *India  $16.0T;    #4 *Russia  $6.9T;

#5 Japan  $6.6T;     #6 Germany $6.0T;     #7 *Brazil 4.7T;    #8 *Indonesia $4.7T;

#9 France 4.4T;   #10 UK  $4.3T  (BRICS member states are marked with *)

BRICS data: The ten BRICS full members have a combined GDP of $77.04T whereas the G7 nations represent a combined GDP of $56.7T. Together, the 10 full BRICS members account for 41.4% of global GDP (the combined G7’s GDP equals 32% of world GDP). BRICS nations now account for 54.6% of world population, 54% of primary crops production and 39% of world industrial manufacture. Unlike Western economies which are increasingly services-centered (mainly just circulating money internally), the BRICS economies actually produce tangibles and significantly export – such as manufactured goods, agricultural produce and raw materials. BRICS nations also control a particularly high share of world petroleum production.

Dollar as world reserve currency: Experts have postulated that, should the US dollar lose its reserve status it would lead to a decline in the U.S. dollar’s value, which in turn could have what they termed “significant implications” for the U.S. economy. Among these would be less access to capital, causing higher borrowing costs leading to lower stock market values, plus increased inflation – which could then all contribute to a slowdown in economic growth and employment. This may oblige the U.S. government to intervene to stabilize the economy and prevent a recession. One of the major benefits reaped by the U.S. from the dollar being the world’s reserve currency, is that it has allowed the American government to run up large deficits in both international trade and government spending, thus somewhat artificially sustaining a national debt as large as the current one of almost 38 trillion dollars.

According to analysts, what world de-dollarization would fundamentally do is to shift the balance of power among nations and reshape the global economy and markets. This is why, soon after having been re-elected and well before even entering the White House again, Trump had already threatened 100% tariffs on any country participating in undermining the reserve status of the dollar. He wrote on Truth Social that: “The idea that the BRICS Countries are trying to move away from the Dollar while we stand by and watch is OVER. We require a commitment from these Countries that they will neither create a new BRICS Currency, nor back any other Currency to replace the mighty U.S. Dollar or, they will face 100% Tariffs, and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful U.S. Economy.“

Military balance of power: In the military sphere, China’s armed forces of more than 2 million personnel outnumber that of the USA by some 650,000. In terms of actual active-duty troops, the Chinese forces outnumber that of the USA by more than two to one. A Pentagon study conducted in 2022 showed that 77% of America’s young population are unfit for military duty, because of health problems such as being overweight, using drugs or having mental and physical health problems.

China’s navy is now the world’s largest maritime fighting force, as well as being its most modern, with more than 234 active-duty war-fighting vessels of more than 1,000 metric tonnes each, compared to the 219 of the USA. According to published US Navy estimates, China today possesses 230 times the shipbuilding capacity of the USA and is still forging ahead with its rapid expansion of its navy, thus continuing to grow the gap. Apart from being significantly more modern and of more recent build, the Chinese navy also is more balanced, since the USA is over-heavily invested in aircraft carriers whose survivability against China’s modern hypersonic anti-ship “carrier killer” missiles are increasingly being doubted by experts (should these carriers be taken out early on, then the remaining US vessels will be significantly out-classed in terms of numbers and firepower by the more balanced Chinese spread of vessel types).

These are, of course, mere statistics which can turn out to signify different things in terms of real-world ability to actually project military power or to prevail in combat. Perhaps the most significant indicators of what could likely result from the actual use of these military means in a war between the USA and China, can be found in the results of numerous war games conducted on the American side (in its military, as well as by think-tanks) over recent years.

A March 2024 headline in the EurAsiaTimes sums up what a series of such war games conducted by different American institutions brought forth: “China Scores 8 Victories Against US, Japanese Troops; US-Held Wargames Give Decisive Edge To Beijing”. This headline is a summation of a collation of eight years (2016 – 2023) of war game results undertaken by CIMSEC, the Centre for International Maritime Security, which itself stated as conclusion that what it had identified was a “clear regressive trend” in the USA’s chances of prevailing in a war against China…

Looking now at the conflict in Ukraine against the foregoing backdrop, the following appear to be inescapable realities confronting the new American national security planners:

• Can Ukraine conceivably be assisted to the point of winning? This seems more unrealistic than ever, so that the question for Trump becomes whether he wishes to be associated with the inevitable loser or (as best case) with the eventual winner, (or, at a minimum), had distanced himself and his country in timely manner from the loser by passing Ukraine off to the Europeans in the same way as the Europeans had up to now effectively been passing off responsibility to Washington.
• Most of the rest of the world have come to see the conflict in Ukraine as Russia battling – successfully – the combined West (a West which, in the Global South, is still very much associated with recent memory of racist imperial conquest, subjugation and exploitation).
• USA engagement in and spending on the Ukraine conflict does nothing to advance its position vis-a-viz its main peer competitor, China (in actual fact, there is nothing that China would more like to see than that the USA remains entrapped in a costly, never-ending, no-win proxy war in Ukraine).
• The longer the war lasts, the bigger will become Russia’s victory in terms of land seized and influence gained, and the greater will be the impact of America’s perceived defeat, in psychological terms. Conversely, the only way to limit the extent of Russia’s eventual victory is to entice them with separate incentives to stop their invasion asap.
• If Trump does not succeed in quickly distancing his administration from the unfolding Ukraine debacle (by pinning it on “stupidity” of his predecessors), he will come to own it – with nothing to show for it but ever-growing cost and loss in prestige for the USA.
• Even should America and NATO succeed in helping Ukraine to resist and survive, there is no real material or strategic benefit to be gained for the USA from it – staying engaged with Ukraine will mean continued entanglement with Europe’s poorest and most corrupt country, needing ongoing security guarantees and massive, costly reconstruction as well as huge amounts of humanitarian aid.
• An inescapable consequence of continuing the war is that it forces Russia ever more solidly into the arms of China and other dangerous parties such as Iran and North Korea; the war thus solidifies a bi-polar, China-centered paradigm of world power relationships, whereas America’s interests would be better served by a multi-polar paradigm in which Russia and Europe could help counter-act China.
• In the context of the current geo-strategic world power reality, the USA needs to shift from a posture of seeking world-wide primacy to one of enhancing deterrence (the latter, the word Trump and Hegseth have been stressing); this requires true burden-sharing among allies, which ca best be achieved by allocating responsibility for distinct geographical spheres (the effort at burden-sharing within NATO by means of equalized obligatory financial contributions has clearly failed; a better approach would be to make allies primarily responsible for their own geographic back yards).
• In terms of its own vital interests and its competition with China, the USA needs to free itself up to be able to focus on its own geographic sphere of interest, namely north and central America and the Indo-Pacific; should the USA continue to lead and shoulder the major part of the burden of assisting Ukraine, American allies will continue to enjoy the opportunity to hide under the American umbrella with little incentive to step up their own defence spending, while the USA will be precluded from focusing its means where its own interests dictate that it will be needed most.
• What the war in Ukraine (as well as the blows traded by Iran and its allies versus Israel) has demonstrated, is the vital importance of missiles and drones in modern warfare, as well as the reality that large conflicts are unlikely to be resolved quickly but will almost inevitably turn into wars of attrition. America thus needs to invest in its own “Iron Dome” missile defence shield, for which Greenland and Canada’s northern islands, together with Alaska, form a vital geographical foot-hold (just look down at the globe from a North Pole perspective, and you will immediately see the location of Greenland astride the flight paths of land-based ballistic missiles launched from China and Russia at the USA; similarly, the Panama Canal would be as strategically important to the USA in case of a drawn-out war of attrition as it was when it was built for just such strategic purpose at the beginning of the last century).
• China needs to be deprived as much as possible of military allies; BRICS should be prevented from evolving from an economic association into a military alliance. To this end there needs to be a carrot and stick approach, firstly trying to entice key BRICS members such as India and Russia not to ally too closely with China (thus, the carrots of premier Modi being received with fanfare at the White House within the first month of Trump’s new reign, whilst for Russia the carrot being dangled now is for it to be recognised as a significant pole in own right in a multi-polar world). To discourage others from joining BRICS, a telling example needs to be made of a suitably vulnerable BRICS member to show the dire consequences of displeasing the USA (i.e., targeting South Africa for maximum weakening).
• Understanding that so fundamental a pivot as is now required by the new realities listed above, inevitably will result in a great gnashing of teeth and accusations of betrayal and weakness, a pre-emptive effort needed to be made by Trump to assertively portray a general picture of strength and resolve in the run-up to the Ukraine pivot being made public. Those most likely to complain needed to be set up for public failure, by confronting them with challenges which they cannot hope to meet. To this end, the roll-out of the new pivot had to be meticulously planned, individual messaging roles allocated and programmed, and the entire effort synchronised to show internal team cohesion and buy-in, aimed at achieving maximum psychological impact.
• The conflict now playing out on the battlefields of eastern Ukraine has never been about Ukraine as such; that benighted land is just the incidental theatre of kinetic clashes in a decades-old conflict which always has had Washington and Moscow as its main protagonists – and upon whom it always would have fallen to put an end to it.

Given these determinants, what have we seen the Trump administration do, and what should we expect of them in the weeks and months ahead?

Firstly, Trump had made a point from day one to project a level of assertiveness and a “strongman image” even beyond what he had done before. Deliberately and ostentatiously throwing his weight around regarding Greenland, the Panama Canal, the Gulf of America (Mexico) and more, all in order to create a public aura that would defeat any incriminations of weakness when the day came to make public the Russia/Ukraine pivot.

6.2.1: Treasury Secretary Bessent going to Kyiv was the opening move, to confront Zelenskyy with an Acknowledgement of Debt to be signed as guarantee for the billions the USA had already provided, with Ukraine’s minerals, energy resources, ports and infrastructure serving as collateral – a deliberate setting up of Zelenskyy leaving him with two options only – either capitulate and sign, or refuse and accept the failure of the relationship with the USA. (Looking at the initial draft of the agreement, I can say as lawyer and diplomat that it was not drawn up in the normal prose used for inter-state accords, but rather in the language of an acknowledgement of liability pushed under the nose of a delinquent debtor; although often referred to as an accord targeting rare earth resources, it goes way beyond that, to include ports, infrastructure, energy resources and mineral wealth in general)

Why was this done? As a quid pro quo, as a reality check and as a pivot in the nature of the relationship. Zelenskyy had been demanding security guarantees for Ukraine; the Trump team in return demanded security guarantees for the USA’s huge financial investment made over the preceding three years. Should the Ukrainians not sign, then such refusal is the perfect justification for Congress stopping all further aid, which would quickly enough force an end to the fighting. It also served as a reality check – Zelenskyy initially reacted angrily, refusing to sign, but it seems that the harsh reality of their situation then soon enough started sinking in among the Ukrainians. Lastly, this deal paved the way for an important pivot as regards the nature of the Ukraine/USA relationship – switching from a military focus to an economic one. With the latter only capable of being realised if and when the military conflict stops.

6.2.2 Defence Secretary Hegseth then further set the cat among the pigeons with an unusually blunt speech to the West’s Ukraine contact group, in which he stated that Ukraine needs to forget about NATO membership, and of regaining its lost land, or that American troops would be sent to Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping force. He made very clear that the strategic priority of America is to focus henceforth on China and the Indo-Pacific and also reiterated the demand that European NATO allies must up their own defence spending to 5% of GDP. This demand is another setting up of the Europeans to force either their acceptance of Trump’s demand or be deemed to have failed the test. If case of the latter, then the Trump Administration has cover for saying that if Europeans are unwilling to spend on their own defence, why should the USA (an ocean away) do so? To cap it all, Hegseth made clear the intention to imminently begin withdrawing 20% of American forces stationed in Europe…

6.2.3. This was followed by Vice-President Vance in Paris eloquently yet equally bluntly telling Europeans that they had the cat by the tail as regards the development and regulation of Artificial Intelligence.

6.2.4 Vance then went on to the annual Munich Security Conference, where he practically ignored Ukraine and took the Europeans to task about their commitment to democracy, alluding to what the Trumpists see as the root cause of recent Western weakness, namely entrenched elites enforcing woke philosophies and policies. This, Vance followed up with a meeting with German AfD leader Weidel, while ignoring chancellor Scholtz.

This was shock treatment, putting the European leadership on the back foot.

6.2.5 President Trump himself then surpassed all, announcing his 90-minute phone conversation with Putin; Trump portrayed the conversation as having been amicable and constructive, noting that they had agreed to meet soon in person and even to visit each other’s capital cities. Trump announced that bilateral talks at foreign minister level between the USA and Russia were set to commence within days, covering all aspects of their bi-lateral relationship – thus going well beyond just talking about peace in Ukraine.

6.2.6 Trump’s Ukraine envoy, general Keith Kellogg, followed this “electroshock” (as Macron called it) by making clear that no European participation in the Russo-American talks was being envisaged.

6.2.7 French president Macron immediately convened an emergency meeting of key European leaders in Paris the next day, which ended up demonstrating above all the extent to which Europeans were at odds with each other (German chancellor Scholtz walked out early, saying that the proposal by the UK’s premier Keir Starmer to have European troops participate in a future peacekeeping force, was entirely premature; in the UK itself this proposal was panned as being unrealistic, given the depleted state of the UK’s armed forces, with an army that has more horses for ceremonial duty than it has tanks, and the Navy has more admirals than ships). Poland, which had hitherto been quite hawkish in its stance, outright rejected sending Polish troops into Ukraine, in whatever guise.

6.2.8 US Secretary of State Marco Rubio met the very next day in Saudi Arabia with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov and according to both sides these talks went quite well. What was stressed afterwards by Rubio, is the broader context – it was not just about Ukraine, but first and foremost  meeting to restore full diplomatic relations between the two countries (i.a., to get their respective embassies back up to full strength), to explore economic cooperation (with Rubio stressing “extraordinary opportunities”) and then about getting the Ukraine matter resolved (in order to be able to focus thereafter on the further building of bilateral diplomatic and economic relations).

Thus, the attempted isolation of Russia by the West, was emphatically cast aside by the Trump team.

6.2.9 The USA has since come out in opposition to the G7 branding Russia again as the aggressor in Ukraine (as had regularly been done in the group’s earlier communique’s) and adopted a similarly neutral position regarding the wording of a U.N. resolution.

6.2.10 Speaker Johnson then chipped in on further military and financial aid to Ukraine, saying that there was no appetite in the U.S. Congress for it.

6.2.11 Zelenskyy took the bait and reacted angrily to the new American stance, igniting a public spat with Trump by i.a. stating that Trump was living in a “disinformation space”. Trump immediately upped the ante by pointing out Zelenskyy’s current lack of a legitimate electoral mandate and equating this with him effectively being, therefore, a dictator. Trump again reiterated that it was in fact the fault of Biden and Zelenskyy that the invasion occurred. Over the following days Trump continued to escalate the rhetoric, saying i.a. that Zelenskyy was in fact not needed at the negotiation table. Rumours began to be fed to the media that all American arms deliveries to Ukraine have been stopped, and that Elon Musk was set to halt the free use by the Ukrainian military of his Starlink communications system (which measures, together, would mean an immediate severe crippling of Ukrainian military capabilities – particularly because their communications and drone operations depend on Starlink).

In the meanwhile, pressure on Ukraine to sign the proposed financial guarantee agreement with the USA (the one for 50% rights to the exploitation of it minerals, metals, energy and infrastructure) was constantly being stepped up.

The American strategy to get Ukraine and the Europeans to accept its pivot regarding Russia appears to envisage three phases.

7.1. The first, very important phase of negotiations:

This will of necessity consist of getting all involved to accept what the Trump team sees as being the hard practical realities of the prevailing strategic situation (as opposed to the pious talking and wishful thinking by the previous administration). This phase of hard reality being forcefully driven home seems to be working, as evidenced by the reaction of the Poles to Zelenskyy reaching out telephonically to Polish president Duda for support; according to the Polish presidency’s official social media account, Duda had advised Zelenskyy on the 21^st of February as follows: “I conveyed to him (Zelenskyy) that we consistently believe there is no other way to stop the bloodshed and achieve lasting peace in Ukraine except with the support of the United States. For this reason, I suggested to President Zelenskyy to remain committed to the course of calm and constructive cooperation with Donald Trump. I trust that good will and honesty form the foundation of the U.S. negotiation strategy. I have no doubt that President Trump is guided by a deep sense of responsibility for global stability and peace.”

7.1.1 The “rare earth” accord demand: Why is the USA emphasising the immediate signing by Ukraine of the financial repayment guarantee deal, which at face value appears to merit only peripheral attention? On the one hand, it will indeed provide Trump with some gain already to show to his voters, regarding having secured collateral for the funds that Biden had earlier made available without any security for its eventual re-payment. However, this deal is in fact retro-active in that it relates to past aid and does not signify that new aid will be forthcoming. So that it provides no guarantee of future aid to Ukraine, and certainly no direct American security guarantees – at best, it will give the USA a tangible economic interest in maintaining peace and security there, in order that the minerals can in fact be exploited.

What press reporting indicates is that the Trump team is following the basic coercive negotiation strategy of making each new iteration of the draft accord which they initially had put on the table, more onerous than before, every time that Ukraine delays signing and asks for revisions. So that the quicker they sign, the better the deal will be for them…

So, why then the emphasis on getting it signed asap? Trump has clearly understood that the Europeans had fallen into the trap of predicating their own positions on the mantra that Ukraine needs to have the last say about peace with Russia; if, therefore, he can early on break Ukraine to his will, then the Europeans will have to fall in line. Zelenskyy signing such an onerous side-deal now, will, furthermore, be concrete proof that the new reality has indeed sunk in with the Ukrainians. If and when they succumb to Trump’s blatant arm-twisting on this specific precursor deal and sign it, then psychologically their resistance in future to accepting subsequent American dictates about the nature and terms of the broader peace deal with Russia, will pre-emptively have been weakened significantly.

And the lesson regarding the real power dynamics at play, will not be lost upon the rest of Europe…

If, however, Zelenskyy should persist in refusing to sign this precursor deal, then of course it will provide cover for Trump to exclude Zelenskyy from the negotiation table and to absolutely block all American financial, technological, intelligence, and military aid to Ukraine till they come round to his point of view – justifying this to his voters by averring that America is clearly being exploited, with no real intention to pay it back the billions already advanced.

7.2  The second phase of negotiation:

This phase will consist of setting the table for proper peace talks to commence, indicating to each stakeholder an American willingness to try and give them what they each most desire (when things are reduced to basic essentials, that is).

7.2.1 The offer to Russia: In the case of Russia, that would mean an end to American-led covert attempts at destabilisation and expanding NATO, with fully normalised diplomatic relations, sanctions removed, mutually beneficial economic relations restored, and Russia thus recognised and respected anew by America as a Great Power with legitimate security interests in its own geographical sphere.

7.2.2 What Europe stands to gain: For the Europeans, it would be an end to the financial burden imposed on them of supporting Ukraine militarily, as well as an end to the onerous implications for them of maintaining economic sanctions against Russia, which is their natural supplier of cheap energy and raw materials. Revising the regional security architecture and tying Russia into an agreed such new security framework would also present a significant security guarantee for Europeans against any further Russian expansion.

7.2.3  What is on offer for Ukraine: For Ukrainian nationalists, it would first and foremost be the prospect of an end to the killing and destruction. The negotiations would allow the opportunity to re-define the contentious, artificially designed Ukrainian republic imposed by the Soviets in the 1920’s and expanded by Stalin and Khrushchev, so that there may finally emerge a viable, sovereign state with a clear Ukrainian cultural identity and ethnic majority, within agreed borders. A state that will be allowed to join the European Union and whose sovereignty and legitimacy will be recognised by Russia.

These are the fundamental needs of each party as identified in Trump’s “back to basics” approach – without being naïve about the myriad of other issues that may dealy or even derail the negotiation process. These basic elements are what Trump’s current drive to ensure that hard, objective reality now be recognised, is designed to place front and centre in the negotiations (to try and overcome squabbles about details) .

7.3 The third phase:

During the third phase the USA will likely focus on facilitatating negotiations and compromise, probably acting mostly from behind the scenes so as not to be compromised by the eventual outcome. Effectively the Americans will be enjoying the privilege of sitting back, till hard reality on the battlefield forces the other parties (especially Ukraine) to come to some form of agreement. Once the reality has sunk in that the U.S. pivot has irrevocably been made, then the USA will be able to afford to wait somewhat for the Ukraine situation to sort itself out, while America continues re-aligning its own bilateral relationship with Russia.

Since this conflict has never been about Ukraine as such, but always about the USA and Russia (in the context of Great Power competition) it remains true that Ukraine does not hold that many cards to play. The longer Ukraine refuses to compromise, the more extensive will become Russia’s gains on the ground – especially if the USA no longer sends military materiel and funds.

Furthermore, since by delaying a peace deal (or, at minimum, a cease-fire) Ukraine will in effect be hampering a U.S. normalisation with Russia – the latter being what America actually needs and desires,  in terms of its own “main thing” (its competition with its principal peer competitor, China), the negotiating environment for Ukraine may become steadily more negative. This growing difficulty for Ukraine with every passing day will also be due to Europeans soon enough realising that a continuation of the war in Ukraine will be taxing them and their economies ever harder – that, whilst the eventual outcome will remain inevitable, but whilst an economically beneficial alternative in the form of a peace deal in fact beckons.

As the USA pivots towards normalisation with Russia and pursues the logical corollary thereto, namely facilitating a peace deal regarding the war in Ukraine, the Trump administration is likely to also focus on re-establishing that which – more than anything else – had assured it of victory during the 2^nd World War, which is its industrial base. To this end, imposing a broad range of import tariffs on friend and foe alike is in the offing (defended as fairly levelling the playing field). To help eliminate other critical areas in which America is at a disadvantage to China, there will likely also be renewed emphasis on national health and education, and on research and development in the sphere of technology, especially AI.

Perhaps the most contentious for its liberal European allies will be a continued focus by the Trump team on what they regard as the principal contributor to the decline that they perceive in the relative power of the West: the subversion of traditional culture by wokism. The MAGA movement will therefore very likely keep pushing to strengthen like-minded parties and leaders in Europe (what will Elon Musk be focusing on, after DOGE comes to an end in June 2026?).

8.1  Trump is deadly serious and his actions are well planned and executed:

The right questions to ask about Trump is not whether his positions and actions are morally correct or whether his methods and style are appropriate; the questions that matter, are whether he’s just blowing hot air, or is deadly serious – and, if the latter, whether he has the cards in hand and the skills to ensure that he wins his gambit.

The evident answer to the latter questions is that he is indeed deadly serious, and that his actions up to now have been carefully planned and fully logical (in terms of his own thought processes and worldview, which his nationally security team has fully bought into). These well-coordinated actions are being executed with great skill and effect, being backed by very real, practically irresistible leverage and a ruthless willingness to use it to the full.

During his first term Trump was, particularly as regards national security policy, just president in name, with the so-called Deep State deliberately kneecapping him from even before he had first taken office. Today, things are very different…

The current stand-off over Ukraine between liberal European elites and Trump cannot be seen separately from what is for Trump and his followers the equally intense (and equally as important as Ukraine’s kinetic conflict), ideological war against wokism.  Trump’s movement aims above all to restore traditional Christian conservative cultural values and are, therefore, fundamentally at odds with the liberal European elites with their attachment to globalist, woke values. Trumpists have no illusions about the fact that European elites had looked down upon Trump and actively supported American anti-Trump elites in the past. They also clearly believe that their MAGA movement cannot be deemed securely installed, until and unless their cultural values emerge victorious in European politics as well.

Trumpists furthermore understand perfectly clearly that both Ukraine and liberal European governments favour NATO membership for Ukraine (as their suggested “best and cheapest” security guarantee) precisely because such a step will in practical reality pass the onus and the cost of defending Ukraine squarely onto the shoulders of the USA.

Trump’s sudden pivot on Russia is, therefore, not haphazard. Trump will not allow the USA to be caught carrying the can of ending up standing publicly associated with a loser, in what he soberly sees as an inevitable Ukrainian defeat. The pivot is a deliberate, pre-planned strategic re-alignment of how the USA sees its over-arching global security interests and reflects the extent to which Trump is willing to act forcefully to actively pursue those interests across the board. In short, Trump believes it to be imperative that the USA henceforth prioritises China, and that Russia should not be forced completely into the arms of Beijing; furthermore, that BRICS be prevented from growing ever larger and more attractive to non-aligned countries.

8.2 What does it mean for South Africa?

Assessed against this broad perspective, it is evident that Trump’s actions regarding South Africa are not isolated or haphazard either. Nor is it charitably intended for the benefit of South Africans (or any group of them) as such. These actions must be understood as part of the USA’s active new countermeasures against the threat which the Trump team perceives that China and BRICS pose to its vital interests (as well as these measures also happening to serve as a counter against the harm being caused by South Africa to the USA’s favoured ally, Israel).

In the same way that the USA is employing the carrot to make overtures to key BRICS members India and Russia, it needs a target for employing the stick to dissuade others from aligning with BRICS. South Africa is the logical victim to choose for this, because of its long-standing identification with BRICS, its obvious vulnerability and the relative ease with which it may be broken by the combined financial leverage of the USA and Israel. Thereby to serve as the perfect cautionary example of what to expect, for other nations that may be considering aligning with BRICS against U.S. interests, or who dare to take on Israel. Since Trump is clearly willing to be ruthless (as he demonstrably is being with Ukraine and even his European allies), there should not be any illusions about how hard his administration intends and are willing to come down on South Africa.

How, then, to understand the real objective behind the “Afrikaner refugee” executive order? Firstly, Afrikaners are mentioned by name simply because it would be too overtly racist to have referred to whites. In terms of America’s internal politics, an allegedly threatened ethnic minority had of necessity to be singled out, rather than a racial group. Just asking an AI chatbot what is keeping South Africa going is instructive – the coldly objective answer I got is: “The economy relies on skilled white professionals and farmers…”. It is, therefore, not a huge stretch to see the invitation for “Afrikaners” to leave, as part of a deliberate strategy to push the South African economy along to failure (by depriving it of its key professionals, tax base and capital), for all the world to see.

Of course, the South African government has done all it could to nominate itself for selection as the appropriate target to make an example of, for instance with its willingness to accept Iranian money for bringing genocide charges against Israel. That said, it may be too optimistic to hope that American punitive measures are merely intended to “correct” such actions – it is entirely conceivable that a campaign is in fact afoot to actually, visibly break South Africa, as an important symbolic blow to BRICS and a concrete example to others…

In this regard, the recent observations by renown South African financial advisor Magnus Heystek that 70% of his company’s clients have already sent abroad their liquid assets and/or converted into other asset classes is telling. He further remarked “…we have been extremely, extremely busy with new clients … the instruction from clients is simply: here it is, take it out. No questions, no arguments, just get it out of the country. Now that in itself is a danger. If that is multiplied by a 10 or 100 or 1000 companies who do what we do, that means there’s a heck of a lot of money going to leave the country.”

South Africans should likely brace for continued pressure to be exerted with the aim to cause the country (as the symbolically important “S” in the original BRICS) to visibly fail, as cautionary example to others.

8.3 What then should Ukraine and liberal European elites expect to lie ahead?

The bottom line, from the Trump perspective, is that for as long as that war goes on, Russia will inevitably remain cast as the enemy, and the USA will have to pony up to deal with Moscow as enemy, forcing it further into Beijing’s orbit. Should the war be allowed to continue, then the USA will have no other option but to keep filling the coffers of the military-industrial complex whilst risking eventually being identified with the losing side – or risk a Third World War with nuclear consequences.  On the other hand, with peace and employing the carrots of recognising Russia as a Great Power in a multipolar constellation, plus by offering it economic cooperation, Trump clearly hopes that he will be able to entice Russia away from Iran and North Korea, and to soften its alliance with (dependence on?) China.

It has always been the fondest wish of Russians to be fully accepted into the European family of nations. For his part, it is likely Trump’s understanding and desire that Putin’s Russia will, in the intra-Western culture wars, be strengthening the MAGA side in their push to see traditional European Christian cultural values triumph over liberal woke agendas, thus bolstering Western resilience in the civilizational competition Trump sees ahead with China.

8.4 Can the Trump pivot conceivably lead to lasting peace in Europe?

With the Elysee Treaty of 1963 Conrad Adenauer of Germany and Charles de Gaulle of France launched European integration and with it, they broke the historic chain of perennial wars between Western European nations. They achieved this by bringing them together in economic union. Perhaps the best security guarantees for both Ukraine and Russia will be to eventually have both of them as part of an extended EU, as well as together within an agreed common new pan-European security framework (Russia has all along been insisting that what is actually needed is not merely a bilateral Russia-Ukraine peace deal, but some form of broadly agreed new regional security architecture).

The USA had during the nineties and early 2000’s refused to bring post-Soviet Russia into the Western fold because America was then the unipolar hegemon and wanted to remain the sole tough guy in its gang (the influential U.S. military-industrial complex and their Neocon acolytes were, furthermore, not keen at all on competition within NATO from the Russian armaments industry).

However – what would the U.S. stance towards Russia have been back then, if the Americans had at that time accurately foreseen the rapid rise of China as their future principal peer competitor? If they had foreseen the formation of BRICS and that it would soon surpass the G7 and NATO in terms of economic size? With such insight, would America then still have shunned Russia, or actually at the time already have done its best to lock Moscow into its own orbit?

Trump’s strength is to break down complex challenges into their most basic components, and then to focus relentlessly on the “main thing”. Furthermore, he has proven himself to have a remarkable ability to go on and visualise solutions that had been essentially unthinkable before. Re-imagining problems and solutions in that back-to-basics manner, that may at first glance appear un-orthodox and even simplistic, but which in fact does squarely address the actual core of the matter.

If Trump can set the wheels in motion for fully completing the Union of Europe by eventually having both Russia and Ukraine as members of it, that will be the best security guarantee that either of those two could have (and their European neighbours as well, for that matter). This, fundamentally, is what could really put an end, once and for all, to the eternal wars among white men that have visited so much harm upon their kin and upon the world at large. Even if, realistically, this ultimate goal needs to be strived for step-by-step, starting now with negotiating a new regional security architecture, then Trump as unorthodox initiator of such a process will truly have merited the Nobel Peace Prize – no matter if it should end up being awarded posthumously, decades hence…