Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском War is a numbers game. Each side involved must marshal the supplies, troops and firepower needed to sustain the fight, thwart advancing armies and, hopefully, prevail. But it’s also a game of uncertainty. For the past three years, Ukraine’s military planners have had to approach every battle with a series of cold calculations: How much ammunition is left? How many air defense interceptors can be fired today, without running short tomorrow? Do we have the men and equipment needed to advance or hold position? But now, with U.S. military assistance on hold and European support constrained by economic realities, that uncertainty is growing. As an expert on warfare, I know this isn’t just a logistical problem; it’s a strategic one. When commanders can’t predict their future resource base, they are forced to take fewer risks, prioritize defense over offense and hedge against worst-case scenarios. In war, uncertainty doesn’t just limit options. It shapes the entire battlefield and fate of nations. Trump orders a pause On March 3, 2025, President Donald Trump announced a suspension to all U.S. military aid to Ukraine. It followed a fractious Oval Office meeting between the U.S. president and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, after which Trump declared the Ukrainian leader “not ready for peace.” Two days later, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe announced Washington was also pausing all intelligence sharing and ordered key allies such as the United Kingdom to limit the information they give Kyiv. National security adviser Michael Waltz has linked the pause to ongoing U.S.-Ukrainian negotiations, stating that weapons supplies and intelligence sharing will resume once Ukraine agrees to a date for peace talks with Russia. A critical supplier of weapons Any pause, no matter how long, will hurt Ukraine. The U.S. has been the largest provider of military assistance to Kyiv since Russia’s 2022 invasion, followed by the European Union. While the level of support is debated – it is often skewed by how one calculates equipment donations using presidential drawdown authority, through which the president can dip into the Department of Defense’s inventory – the U.S. has undoubtedly delivered critical weapons systems and a wide range of ammunition. Though this assistance has decreased U.S. military stockpiles, it has helped Washington invest in its domestic defense industry and expand weapons production. In addition, while Europe is starting to increase its own defense expenditures, EU members are stuck with flat economic growth and limits on how much they can borrow to invest in their own militaries, much less Ukraine. This makes the U.S. a critical partner for Ukraine for at least another two years while Europe expands its military capacity. These conditions affect the design of Ukraine’s military campaigns. Planners in Kyiv have to balance predictions about the enemy’s strengths and possible courses of action with assessments of their own resources. This war ledger helps evaluate where to attack and where to defend. Uncertainty skews such calculation. The less certain a military command is about its resource base, the more precarious bold military maneuvers become. It is through this fog of uncertainty that any pause in assistance shapes the course of the war in Ukraine and the bargaining leverage of all parties at the negotiating table. A new uncertain world The White House has indicated that the pause in military aid and intelligence sharing will be lifted once a date for peace talks is set. But even if U.S. weapons and intel begin to flow again, Ukrainian generals will have to fight the duration of the war under the knowledge that its greatest backer is willing to turn off the taps when it suits them. And the consequences of this new uncertain world will be felt on the battlefield. Ukraine now faces a brutal trade-off: stretch limited resources to maintain an active defense across the front, or consolidate forces, cede ground and absorb the political costs of trading space for time. Material supply has shaped operational tempo over the course of the war. When Moscow expects Kyiv to be low on ammunition, it presses the attack. In fact, key Russian gains in eastern Ukraine in 2024 coincided with periods of critical supply shortages. Russia used its advantage in artillery shells, which at times saw Moscow firing 20 artillery shells to every Ukrainian artillery shell fired, and air superiority to make advances north and west of the strategic city of Avdiivka. Looking to the front lines in 2025, Russia could use any pause in supplies to support its ongoing offensive operations that stretch from Kherson in southern Ukraine to Kharkiv in the north and efforts to dislodge Ukrainian units in the Russian Kursk region. This means Ukraine will have to decide where to hold the line and where to conduct a series of delaying actions designed to wear down Russian forces. Trading space for time is an old military tactic, but it produces tremendous political costs when the terrain is your sovereign territory. As such, the military logic of delaying actions creates political risks in Ukraine – sapping civilian morale and undermining support for the government’s war management. A horrible choice This dilemma will drive where and how Ukraine weights its efforts on the battlefield. First, long-range strike operations against Russia will become increasingly less attractive. Every drone that hits an oil refinery in Russia is one less warhead stopping a Russian breakthrough in the Donbas or counterattack in Kursk. Ukraine will have to reduce the complexity of its defensive campaign and fall back along lines deeper within its own territory. Second, Russia doesn’t fight just on the battlefield – it uses a coercive air campaign to gain leverage at the negotiating table. With U.S. military aid on hold, Moscow has a prime opportunity to escalate its strikes on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, forcing Kyiv into painful choices about whether to defend its front lines or its political center of gravity. From Vietnam to Ukraine, airpower has historically been a key bargaining tool in negotiations. President Richard Nixon bombed North Vietnam to force concessions. Russia may now do the same to Ukraine. Seen in this light, Russia could intensify its missile and drone campaign against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure – both to weaken defenses and to apply psychological and economic pressure. And because Kyiv relies on Western assistance, including intelligence and systems such as U.S.-built Patriot surface-to-air missiles to defend its skies, this coercive campaign could become effective. As a result, Ukraine could be faced with a horrible choice. It may have to concentrate dwindling air defenses around either key military assets required to defend the front or its political center of gravity in Kyiv. Interception rates of Russian drones and missiles could drop, leading to either opportunities for a Russian breakout along the front or increased civilian deaths that put domestic pressure on Ukrainian negotiators. Uncertainty reigns supreme The real problem for Ukraine going forward is that even if the U.S. resumes support and intelligence sharing, the damage is done. Uncertainty, once introduced, is hard to remove. It increases the likelihood that Ukraine’s leaders will stockpile munitions to reduce the risk of future pauses, rather than use them to take the fight to Russia. And with battlefield decision-making now limited, Ukraine’s military strategists will increasingly look toward the least worst option to hold the line until a lasting peace is negotiated.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Does the resolutely pro-Moscow approach of the new team in Washington mean that Russia is the big winner in the Ukrainian war at this stage? That Ukraine will have resisted for three years for (almost) nothing? That the United States will reap the long-term benefits of this strategic position in Europe? And will the EU be marginalized and reduced to a secondary role on its own continent? Visible success should not obscure the strategic setbacks of the self-proclaimed winners. Ever since the second Trump administration unilaterally opened direct and exclusive talks with Russia on the fate of Ukraine in Saudi Arabia on 18 February, MAGA communicators everywhere have heralded the end of the conflict. Even if a simple ceasefire now seems highly unlikely, the new American president proclaims that he will soon lead the "peace side" to victory, since he claims to be its leader. Who knows if he will have the courage to apply for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize himself? After three years of war, if the terms of negotiation announced last week are confirmed, we must return to the essential question of victory and the corollary question of defeat: who can claim the title of victor in this armed conflict? And, conversely, who is to be condemned to the status of the vanquished? The war of narratives has long since doubled and intensified the military war: European geopolitics is now confronted with a viral narrative that portrays Russia and the United States as winners to relegate Europeans and Ukrainians to the status of "losers". But if geopolitics feed on narratives, narratives - especially propaganda narratives - do not exhaust the strategic situation. As Machiavelli noted in Chapter XVII of The Prince: "The politician knows how to create illusions, but when it comes to assessing the strengths and weaknesses of an enemy, he must avoid relying solely on his eyes (which judge appearances) and instead use his hands (which feel reality). Let us be clear: at this stage of Ukraine debate, the reality of victory and the irreversibility of defeat are still matters of narrative. Let us plunge into reality. Ukraine, now vilified and resilient According to the Trumpian narrative broadcast everywhere today, Ukraine and its president must be treated as losers, even defeated. Everything about the behaviour of the American president and his team is aimed at hastening and consecrating the country's defeat: After having been asked to surrender its rare earth resources at rock-bottom prices, Ukraine, like the vanquished in the two world wars, is being excluded from the negotiating table on its own destiny by its self-appointed protector; its legitimate government is being openly denigrated and its legitimacy undermined; it is even being threatened with "war sanctions" to compensate the United States for the financial effort it has made to support it in the face of an illegal invasion. Beneath the strategic shift and the military evasion lies a continuity: for the United States, Ukraine is not a participant but a stake. Ukraine's symbolic defeat - that of history - is obviously compounded by its real setbacks. In addition to the 80,000 to 120,000 soldiers killed on the battlefield, the country of forty-three million people has lost more than six million refugees and millions of citizens who have been incorporated into the Russian Federation. And more than 20% of its territory is now in danger of officially falling under Russian sovereignty. Deprived by the Trump administration of the prospect of NATO membership, it risks a demilitarization comparable to that imposed on Germany after the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. At a time when symbolic defeat seems destined to go hand in hand with human and material misery, Ukraine can only save itself from despair by remembering that it has manifested its national identity - so often denied - with arms in hand. The narrative is that of a failed, slaughtered state, while the strategic reality is that of a state that has repelled the total occupation of its territory. The Ukrainians may not be the winners, but they are not "losers" reduced to an international minority. The United States, strategically discredited Can Washington, for its part, claim the trophy of strategic victory in Ukraine? Is the second Trump administration not determining the destiny of the old continent just as the Biden administration claimed to do, but in a different direction? Can't the United States now, more than ever, claim to be Europe's arbiter? Nothing is less certain: Ukraine's policies over the past decade (the Obama, Trump 1, and Biden administrations) have indeed demonstrated the United States' refusal to play a leadership role in Europe. They encouraged Ukraine's inflexibility towards Russia but failed to prevent it from annexing Crimea in 2014, escalating tensions under the first Trump administration, and then invading in 2022. It then supported it for almost three years, only to disown it in a political transition. Washington has behaved not as a leader but as an arsonist in Ukraine, declaring on the one hand that Kyiv should be free to pursue its alliance policy but ruling out any concrete prospect of NATO membership on the other. One of the main lessons of Washington's Ukraine policy is that being one of the United States' "allies" is a risky business: not only does it leave you at the mercy of sudden shifts in alliances, but it also exposes you to constant admonishment and vilification on the international stage. The Europeans have paid the price: criticized by the Biden administration for their pacifism at the start of the war, they are now being criticized, along with the Ukrainians, for failing to bring the war to an end. The United States has made no major strategic gains in this war: it has undermined its own network of allies, damaged its largest military alliance in the world, NATO, and failed to dislodge its strategic regional rival, Russia. Trump's communication tricks will not change this: the United States has suffered undeniable structural strategic setbacks in this conflict. The long Ukrainian crisis, from the Orange Revolution to the current talks, via Euromaidan and the annexation of Crimea, is the opposite of a show of strength for US international strategy: it is a financially costly and strategically ruinous fiasco. The contamination effect on Asian alliances is likely to be massive and rapid: who will want to rely on the American umbrella against the People's Republic of China? Russia, permanently "de-Europeanized What about Russia? Is it the big winner in all this? After all, hasn't it received the promise of Ukraine's non-membership of NATO, its demilitarization, and its transformation into a rump state between Russian and EU territory? In addition to the 20% of Ukrainian territory (population and natural resources) it has seized, it wants to enjoy the prestige of being treated as a strategic peer by the United States. But is this a victory, even a Pyrrhic one? In historical terms, Moscow has lost in just a few years all the investment it made in its dialogue with the West between 1990 and 2000. It has deliberately squandered its relations with its natural economic outlet: Europe. Russia has been permanently de-Europeanized and will pay the price of this divorce in the form of lower growth potential (loss of markets, investors, assets) and in the form of a substantial defence effort that it will have to maintain in the long term throughout its western part, unless political forces favorable to it come to power simultaneously in the main EU countries, which seems unlikely. Again, we must measure this success with our hands, not our eyes: Russia has not achieved all its war aims, far from it. It did not make Ukraine disappear, and it did not make NATO retreat. Will this strategic hiatus - deliberately pursued by Russia in this war - be compensated for by a successful "pivot to Asia"? At best, the People's Republic of China could give Russia the role of "brilliant second" that Prussia gave Austria-Hungary. It is not so much a Pyrrhic victory as a strategic gamble that China has taken, the payoff of which is neither certain nor substantial. The EU faces up to its responsibilities Despite the condescending statements of the second Trump administration, can the EU claim to have made any strategic gains in this war? Again, the gains are meagre and the costs high: it has made great strides in terms of its capabilities but has not moved into a war economy; it is supporting the Ukrainian state at arm's length but has not forced its way to the negotiating table. If it proves reactive and creative, it can, in the medium term, take advantage of the gaping holes left by Russia and the United States on the European scene. As a result, it can no longer attract states to its side without the threat of arms. The Union must therefore quickly resume its enlargement efforts in order not to leave any space on its doorstep. On the other hand, the United States has openly renounced its status as Europe's protector: it wants to be its ideological dynamo, its industrial and technological supplier, and its strategic dominator. If Europe does not want to be among the losers in the Ukrainian war, it must therefore resolutely take full responsibility for its own defence. The time has come.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Trump escalates his trade war rhetoric and has just begun his second term. In response to the Colombian government's protest over the conditions of its citizens' deportation, the 47th U.S. president retaliated with a furious announcement of a 25% tariff hike, forcing Petro to withdraw his demands. Against Canada and Mexico, his neighbors and trade partners, he has just signed another 25% tariff increase. The reasons? According to Trump, their borders are a sieve for drugs and illegal immigrants. As for China, he has so far imposed a 10% tariff, though his campaign promise was 60%. In the 21st century, trade wars are one of the most controversial strategic tools in international relations. The Economy: A Geostrategic Factor Tariffs have historically been used to protect local industries and balance trade deficits. However, their current use goes beyond their original purpose. These policies have transformed global economic dynamics, reshaping supply chains and markets, and profoundly impacting geopolitical, social, and financial structures. Competitiveness and Technological Strength The contemporary use of trade wars follows a more complex and multifaceted logic. In the case of the United States, for example, the tariffs imposed by recent administrations have aimed both to limit China’s competitiveness and to preserve U.S. technological and economic supremacy. This strategy, however, is not limited to a bilateral confrontation. The United States has also imposed trade barriers on traditional partners such as the European Union and Canada. As a result, traditional alliances have become secondary to the unilateral goal of maximizing profits. This policy has been justified under national security arguments, a legal tool that has generated tensions within the World Trade Organization (WTO) and challenges the principles of non-discrimination and multilateralism that have underpinned the global trade system since the mid-20th century. The impact of these policies affects both intergovernmental relations and, directly, consumers and producers. Tariffs and the Domestic Economy The implementation of tariffs on products from China, such as technological goods and manufactured equipment, has driven up their prices in markets like the United States. As always happens when goods become more expensive, this has especially harmed the most vulnerable sectors of the population by exacerbating economic inequalities and reducing their purchasing power. To maintain competitiveness, many companies have opted to relocate their operations to countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, or Mexico, which entails transition and adaptation costs. Regionalization against Protectionism At a global level, trade wars have triggered a phenomenon of regionalization, leading to the creation of agreements such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), led by China and signed by countries in Asia and Oceania, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which includes nations from the Pacific coasts of Asia and Latin America. Through these agreements, the signatory countries seek to counteract the effects of U.S. protectionist policies. Since 2019, the United States has blocked the appointment of new members to the WTO Appellate Body, weakening its ability to resolve disputes and increasing uncertainty, as well as the likelihood of escalating trade tensions. While regionalization forces a reassessment of the sustainability of the multilateral trade system, in this climate of instability and uncertainty, countries are searching for alternatives that ensure economic stability — though these solutions ultimately reinforce the fragmentation of global trade. Trade War and Geopolitics The impact of trade wars is also evident in the geopolitical sphere. The rivalry between the United States and China, driven in part by tariffs and technological restrictions, is redefining international alliances. On one hand, countries like Japan and South Korea have strengthened ties with the United States to counter China’s influence. On the other hand, emerging economies in Latin America, such as Mexico and Brazil, face pressure to align with one of these blocs, limiting their maneuverability and autonomy on the global stage. In Europe, tensions with the United States have led the European Union to prepare new tariffs and strengthen regulations to protect its strategic industries, such as the automotive and technology sectors. Uncertainty and Volatility While the imposition of tariffs can provide immediate benefits to the countries that implement them — whether in terms of tax revenue or political influence — their social and economic costs can be significant. Trade wars impact the flow of goods and services but also financial stability. Trade tensions increase stock market volatility, influence investment decisions, and weaken global economic growth prospects. The uncertainty generated by protectionism forces companies to adapt to an ever-changing and unpredictable environment. Trade wars have exposed the fragility of global supply chains, underscored the importance of diversifying production sources, and highlighted the need to strengthen multilateral institutions that promote fair and equitable trade. What to Do? The solution goes beyond simply removing tariffs or reversing protectionist policies; a more strategic and resilient approach is needed. This involves fostering international cooperation to address trade tensions, reforming the WTO’s dispute resolution mechanisms, and promoting the relocation of supply chains to more stable regions. Countries that impose tariffs must also consider the impact of these measures on households. Rising prices should prompt policies to mitigate growing social inequalities and protect the most vulnerable sectors. The trade wars of the 21st century reflect a complex balance between protecting national interests and preserving global stability. The key to progress lies in adopting a cooperative and sustainable approach that, beyond immediate economic benefits, also considers collective well-being and international cohesion in the medium and long term.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Ukraine is no longer in control of its own war; great power politics have overtaken its struggle for sovereignty, as seen in its exclusion from key diplomatic negotiations and its increasing reliance on external military and economic aid. While Kyiv fights for survival, the U.S. and Russia pursue larger strategic goals, reshaping the global order. This is not a war of democracy versus autocracy—it is a battle over power and influence, with Ukraine caught in the middle. Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion in 2022, the U.S. has framed the war as a defense of democracy, shaping public perception and policy decisions by justifying increased military aid and economic sanctions against Russia. This framing has also strengthened NATO cohesion and rallied Western support for Ukraine, though critics argue it oversimplifies the conflict’s geopolitical realities. But this narrative masks a deeper reality: a geopolitical contest over Eastern Europe’s balance of power. The U.S. strengthens NATO to contain Russia; Russia fights to keep Ukraine in its orbit. As a result, Ukraine’s ability to act independently is shrinking. At the core of the conflict is a long-standing power struggle between Washington and Moscow. The U.S. aims to maintain dominance over European security, while Russia seeks to dismantle the post-Cold War order that placed NATO on its borders. The Kremlin has repeatedly warned that Ukraine’s Western alignment is a red line, but U.S. policymakers have dismissed these concerns as revisionist grievances rather than legitimate security threats. This deadlock has turned Ukraine into the focal point of an escalating power struggle. For Russia, the war is not just about territory—it is about status. Vladimir Putin frames the conflict as a defense against Western encirclement, citing NATO’s expansion and U.S. military aid to Kyiv as provocations. Moscow’s broader goal is to force a realignment in European security, one that recognizes Russia’s sphere of influence and weakens U.S. hegemony. Under Joe Biden, the U.S. provided billions in military and economic aid to Ukraine, arguing that supporting Kyiv was essential for upholding the liberal order. However, as the war drags on and domestic concerns over foreign spending grow, this approach is being reassessed. With Donald Trump’s return to the White House, U.S. policy has shifted toward a transactional approach, a shift that became evident when he excluded Ukraine from recent U.S.-Russia negotiations in Saudi Arabia, dismissal of NATO allies’ calls for a unified stance against Russia, and willingness to negotiate directly with Vladimir Putin—effectively sidelining Kyiv from key discussions that will determine its future. His strategy prioritizes economic agreements over direct military support, shifting U.S. engagement toward a pragmatic recalibration of interests. This shift was further highlighted during the recent confrontation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House. The meeting, originally intended to finalize a U.S.-Ukraine rare-earth minerals deal, devolved into a heated exchange. Trump accused Zelenskyy of being “disrespectful” and “gambling with World War III,” revealing deep fractures in U.S.-Ukraine relations. The cancellation of a planned joint press conference underscored the breakdown in diplomatic relations, signaling that Ukraine’s leverage in negotiations with Washington is diminishing. The Trump administration’s treatment of Zelenskyy serves as a stark warning to smaller nations reliant on Western support. It highlights the precarious nature of alliances based on strategic convenience rather than genuine commitment to democratic values or sovereignty. Ukraine, once a symbol of Western resolve against Russian aggression, is now being subjected to political maneuvering that undermines its struggle for self-determination. The world is witnessing how great powers prioritize their own interests above the survival of their supposed allies, reinforcing the notion that smaller states can never fully trust the policies of global hegemons. This behavior is not just characteristic of Trump and his administration but is a fundamental aspect of how great powers operate. They perceive their own interests and ideological positions as superior to those of smaller nations, imposing their will under the guise of strategic necessity. The treatment of Ukraine illustrates this dynamic vividly—portraying Ukraine’s justified struggle for sovereignty as though it were a reckless endeavor rather than an existential fight against aggression. The U.S. and its allies, despite claiming to defend Ukraine, have manipulated its war effort for their own geopolitical advantage while simultaneously blaming Ukraine for the very crisis it was forced into. Trump recently emphasized this approach in a statement following a meeting with President Emmanuel Macron at the G7 Summit. He highlighted a proposed “Critical Minerals and Rare-Earths Deal” between the U.S. and Ukraine, describing it as an “Economic Partnership” aimed at recouping American investments while aiding Ukraine’s economic recovery. Simultaneously, he revealed discussions with President Vladimir Putin regarding an end to the war and potential U.S.-Russia economic cooperation, signaling a shift away from military support toward economic and diplomatic agreements. However, tensions flared when Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated Zelenskyy during his February 28 visit, accusing him of ingratitude and pressuring him into a peace deal on U.S. terms. The heated exchange led to the cancellation of a joint press conference and minerals deal signing ceremony. Zelenskyy left the White House abruptly, further deepening the rift between Ukraine and its supposed ally. The public fallout reinforced how great powers prioritize their own strategic interests over the sovereignty of smaller nations, leaving Ukraine increasingly sidelined in decisions that determine its fate. As global power struggles intensify, Ukraine finds itself increasingly excluded from decisions about its own future. Kyiv remains committed to its defense, but external actors—Washington and Moscow—are negotiating their interests over Ukraine’s fate. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s exclusion from key diplomatic discussions, such as the Saudi-hosted talks, underscores this reality. While Biden framed Ukraine as a vital partner in the West’s struggle against Russia, Trump’s approach suggests that Kyiv’s role may be reduced to a bargaining chip in a larger geopolitical realignment.  The Ukraine crisis illustrates the brutal calculus of great power politics, where smaller states become instruments of broader strategic struggles. The U.S.-Russia rivalry has dictated the war’s course, with shifting U.S. policies—from Biden’s interventionism to Trump’s pragmatism—reshaping its trajectory. As Washington and Moscow explore possible diplomatic realignments, Ukraine’s sovereignty risks becoming secondary to great power interests. Great powers dictate the terms of war and peace, leaving Ukraine with fewer choices of its own. The question is not whether Ukraine will survive, but under whose terms it will exist. The text of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 license.  For proper attribution, please refer to the original source

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском It was to be expected, and we were poorly prepared for it, Donald Trump’s phone call to Vladimir Putin has undoubtedly ended 75 years of transatlantic relations. We, the French, had long warned that our security interests with the United States were not always aligned and that these differences could lead to serious disputes. There was the Suez Canal in 1956, there was Iraq in 2003, and there was, in a more moderate sense, Macron’s brain-dead stance on a dispute arising from Turkey’s actions in Syria in 2019. From now on, there will be February 12, 2025. But today, the situation is more serious because it is the security of Europe itself that is at stake, the very security that forms the heart of the existence of the Atlantic alliance. One can understand that the war in Ukraine is unwinnable and that a solution must be found to stop this war. One can understand that Ukraine’s accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a red line for Russia. One can also understand that the United States wants Europeans to take a more significant share of the burden of their defence. However, the problem is that the United States made Ukraine’s NATO membership a goal of the Atlantic alliance at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, against the advice of France and Germany at the time, thus worsening a relationship with Russia that was already deteriorating. The problem also is that Trump wants to negotiate peace between Ukraine and Russia without inviting the European Union and other European countries to the negotiating table, while Europe’s security is at stake. The risk is now clear: a form of bilateral agreement between the United States and Russia, benefiting the interests of both countries, could leave Ukraine severely weakened and an easy prey for Moscow, thereby weakening other European countries consequently. As a consolation prize, we will have to ensure Europe’s conventional security, as US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth announced to Europeans at the opening of the NATO ministerial meeting held in Brussels on 12–13 February 2025. This situation will place Europeans in a terrible dilemma: Either they do not wish to give security guarantees to Ukraine and completely discredit themselves in the eyes of powers such as the United States, Russia, and China, as Europeans will have shown that they are unable to defend the continent, while also creating a significant long-term risk to Europe’s security.Or they provide security guarantees to Ukraine, accepting the cost of a financial burden that will affect the European Union’s competitiveness in the long term.In light of this situation, some advocate for the establishment of a European pillar within NATO. This solution, however, seems outdated given the new context. If one considers that the United States is negotiating peace in Europe without and against the Europeans, and that they no longer wish to defend Europe with conventional military means (will they respect the NATO Defence Planning Process?), it is better for Europeans to fully take on Europe’s security. This would mean taking control of NATO: Europeans must quickly discuss this option and communicate their decision to Secretary General Mark Rutte. It will also be easier to make NATO and the European Union work together with a more Europeanised organisation.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The integration of Artificial Intelligence into military frameworks by India and Pakistan is reshaping regional security dynamics, fueling a doctrinal shift with profound implications for strategic stability. As AI-driven systems enhance military capabilities, the accompanying risks of miscalculation, escalation, and ethical dilemmas demand urgent dialogue and regulatory measures to mitigate potential conflict. The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a transformative technology has reshaped global dynamics across various domains, including national security. As states increasingly incorporate AI into military frameworks, the implications for strategic stability, particularly in nuclear-armed regions like South Asia, are profound. The militarisation of AI by India and Pakistan, underpinned by their historical rivalry, is catalysing a doctrinal evolution with both opportunities and risks for regional security. AI is becoming a cornerstone of military innovation in South Asia with capabilities of autonomous weapons systems, surveillance technologies, and decision-making frameworks becoming increasingly relevant. The development of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, often termed “killer robots,” epitomises the dual-use nature of AI—it offers strategic advantages but also raises concerns about malfunction, miscalculation, and escalation. These concerns are amplified when AI technologies are integrated into nuclear and conventional military frameworks, especially in volatile regions like South Asia. India’s AI-driven military modernisation India has positioned AI as a central element of its strategic ambitions, supported by initiatives such as the Defense AI Council and the establishment of the Centre for AI and Robotics (CAIR) under its Defense Research and Development Organization. The country’s AI-focused projects include developing multi-agent robotic frameworks, advanced surveillance systems, and AI-powered drones. Additionally, HAL Tejas, a multi role combat aircraft, has been modernised by CAIR to assists in maintaining Indian Air Force systems. Meanwhile, the acquisition of over five thousand drones in 2016 have come into action in defence frameworks.  The multi-agent robotic drones work in groups by forming teams for swarms. Collaborative efforts with international partners, including Israel and Japan, have further bolstered India’s AI capabilities, including in teaming initiatives. The integration of disruptive technologies has come along way, evolving with doctrinal changes, particularly with the Joint Doctrine of Indian Armed Forces (2017) and the Land Warfare Doctrine (2018). While both included the potential for AI capabilities, the LWD placed specific emphasis on multi-front environmental frameworks, hybrid warfare, and the incorporation of disruptive technologies in the military domain to secure strategic edge. The deployment of AI-enabled systems along sensitive borders, such as its northwestern frontier with Pakistan, underscores an intent to enhance both offensive and defensive operations. Pakistan’s Response to AI Militarisation Pakistan has also begun integrating AI into its military strategies, albeit this has taken place at an earlier stage. Initiatives such as the establishment of the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Computing and the Army Centre of Emerging Technologies highlight Pakistan’s focus on leveraging AI for defense and cybersecurity. Pakistan’s collaborations with China, a global leader in AI, have facilitated the development of unmanned systems and other AI-enabled technologies. For instance, a joint venture with Chinese Chengdu Aircraft Company is helping to develop unmanned aerial vehicles. Meanwhile, Pakistan has purchased from China Cai Hong drones (Rainbow4/CH-4) that can be effectively deployed for strike missions and reconnaissance. Evolving Nuclear Doctrines India’s nuclear doctrine, historically anchored in a no-first-use (NFU) policy, has evolved to reflect greater flexibility and ambiguity. Statements by Indian officials, coupled with advancements in AI and surveillance technologies, indicate a potential shift toward counterforce strategies. This can be assessed from the statements by national security officials, including 2010 national security advisor Shivshankar Menon, who remarked that “India’s NFU doctrine applied to non-nuclear weapons states, implying that the NFU would not apply to Pakistan.” Rajnath Sing, tthe current Indian defense minister, hinted at flexibility of NFU by saying that “India has strictly adhered to this doctrine. What happens in future depends on the circumstances.” Doctrinal transformations, such as the Land Warfare Doctrine further highlights India’s focus on leveraging AI to enhance its strategic edge. These changes, coupled with the deployment of AI-enabled surveillance systems along borders, signals India’s intent to strengthen its deterrence posture while maintaining the flexibility to adapt to emerging threats. Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine has evolved from a first-use policy to a more nuanced approach encapsulated in the Full Spectrum Deterrence and Quid Pro Quo Plus strategies. The policies of quid pro quo plus and full spectrum deterrence conveys that Pakistan would respond to any kind of cross border military adventure from India in more than a tit-for-tat, a clear message that the response would be a notch higher on the escalation ladder while still posturing the threat of nuclear retaliation at every step of the escalation ladder. These frameworks aim to counter India’s conventional and nuclear superiority by maintaining credible deterrence across the escalation spectrum. These include the development of tactical nuclear weapons and advancements in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. Challenges and Risks The militarisation of AI in South Asia introduces several challenges, including the erosion of strategic stability, the lowering of the nuclear threshold, and the risk of accidental escalation. AI-driven systems, while efficient, lack the nuanced judgment of human operators. This increases the risk of unintended escalation during crises. Additionally, the integration of AI into nuclear command-and-control systems could compress decision-making timelines, heightening the risk of hasty or ill-informed actions. The proliferation of AI technologies also raises concerns about their acquisition by non-state actors, who could exploit these systems for malicious purposes. Finally, the deployment of autonomous weapons systems poses ethical dilemmas and challenges existing frameworks of international humanitarian law. To address these challenges, it is imperative for South Asian states to adopt regulatory frameworks and confidence-building measures. Potential steps include bilateral and multilateral dialogues. For instance, India and Pakistan could engage in dialogue to establish norms and protocols for the use of AI in military operations. Additionally, transparency initiatives, such as data-sharing mechanisms and joint exercises, can help reduce mistrust and prevent miscalculation. Prioritising AI applications for defensive purposes, such as enhanced surveillance and early warning systems, can also mitigate risks while strengthening deterrence. Conclusion The militarisation of AI is reshaping the strategic landscape of South Asia, driving doctrinal evolution, and altering the balance of power. The integration of AI in the military domain is leading India and Pakistan towards a potentially deepening security dilemma. This demonstrates that South Asia, in the age of AI militarisation, will be dominated by feelings of mistrust and erosion of strategic stability. By fostering dialogue and adopting regulatory measures, South Asian states can ensure that AI serves as a tool for stability rather than a catalyst for conflict. In an era of rapid technological advancement, the imperative to manage AI’s military applications responsibly has never been greater. This article was published under a Creative Commons Licence. For proper attribution, please refer to the original source.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском The commitment to free trade is based on the competitive advantage that nations gain from possessing certain material and human resources that are scarce in other countries. The exchange of goods under the umbrella of free trade results in a global benefit, as it fosters economic growth, improves the quality of goods, and diversifies supply. The free trade doctrine, which has governed international trade in recent decades, is opposed by protectionism, which seeks to favor domestic producers over foreign competition. Above All, Protectionism Trump's campaign to win votes from the U.S. automotive and agricultural sectors was based on extreme protectionism – which we could call the ‘Trump Doctrine’ – centered on the promise of raising tariffs on products from competing countries. The increase in tariffs to boost domestic production in non-competitive sectors clashes with the rules of the World Trade Organization and the already established trade relations with exporting countries. On the other hand, those who silently suffer from Trump's protectionist measures are American consumers, who will have to pay higher prices for imported products that are currently cheaper. The need to reorganize international trade flows had already been raised due to the existence of ecological, social, or economic dumping. In response to violations of competition rules and the presence of discriminatory situations, agricultural groups have demanded mirror clauses to ensure that imported products comply with the same regulations as domestic ones. However, all these proposals have been made within a negotiating framework and not in a disruptive and unilateral manner, as the Trump Doctrine does. Tariff Increases Specifically, the U.S. has formalized a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum from other countries, set to take effect on March 4. This impacts the Spanish industrial sector, which exports aluminum worth 500 million to the U.S. market. There are still no details on which Spanish agri-food products (such as wine, olive oil, meat, and dairy) may be affected and to what extent by the Trump Doctrine. Latin American countries are also at risk: in 2021, 86% of their agri-food exports were destined for three regions — the U.S. (23%), the EU (18%), and China (13%). The EU and Latin American countries belonging to Mercosur have the advantage of having signed an agreement in December 2024, which will allow them to strengthen their trade relations and potentially offset losses in the U.S. market. In response to these tariff attacks, countries have reacted by attempting to reach agreements among the affected nations. The European Union and Canada have met to design a joint strategy against the Trump Doctrine, and China is also considering reorganizing its trade flows, which could provide some relief for its exports. However, the damage caused by tariffs is global and does not only affect exporting countries. In the United States, there will be negative impacts on consumers and businesses in the form of higher prices and even shortages or the disappearance of some imported products. United States-Europe Trade Relations There is no free trade agreement between Europe and the United States, although an attempt was made, without success, to establish the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). However, progress has been made in harmonizing food safety regulations, quality standards, and data privacy rules. Nevertheless, Trump accuses Europe of "treating the United States very badly" and has warned that they must balance the "$350 billion" trade deficit. In Europe, the most exposed sectors to the threat of U.S. protectionism are aerospace, automotive, and agri-food. The countries at the highest risk include Germany (automotive), France (aerospace), the Netherlands (petrochemical), Italy (pharmaceutical), Ireland (technology), and Spain (agri-food), as they have the most open economies to foreign trade. On the other hand, the United States exports high-tech products, machinery, chemicals, and agricultural goods (corn, soy, meat) to Europe. In the digital sector, major U.S. companies (Amazon, Google, Apple, Meta) are well-positioned in the Old Continent, often engaging in market dominance abuses that the EU has attempted to curb through fines and legislative changes. Spanish exports to the United States focus on automobiles, machinery, and pharmaceutical and agri-food products (wine, olive oil, meat, dairy, and horticultural products). U.S. imports into the Spanish market primarily consist of machinery, electronic products, pharmaceuticals, financial services, and agricultural goods. The U.S. has invested in Spain in the automotive, technology, energy, distribution, and finance sectors. In turn, Spain has a presence in the North American market in the distribution sector (Inditex, Mango), renewable energy (Iberdrola, Acciona, Naturgy), communications, and infrastructure (Ferrovial, ACS, Sacyr). The Technological Battle A fierce competition is emerging in the development of space travel, military technology, and integrated artificial intelligence. In the geopolitical landscape, development cooperation, armed conflicts, climate change, and environmental sustainability are key issues to consider. We have just witnessed how restrictions on the supply of microprocessors stimulated China's creativity in the tech sector. China welcomed the new year with DeepSeek, its own AI model — with similar capabilities to ChatGPT but significantly lower costs — which has shaken the U.S. tech industry and triggered a stock market upheaval. Meanwhile, the EU is now trying to shake off its role as a mere spectator in the development of these new technologies and has just announced a €200 billion investment in the development of European AI. It is important to remember that Europe has been a pioneer in AI legislation, with the Artificial Intelligence Act approved by its Parliament at the end of 2023.  Outlook and Solutions The impact of trade wars depends, on one hand, on the measures imposed (tariff, fiscal, or regulatory) and the volume of existing trade flows. However, the characteristics of the regions, economic sectors, and affected social groups also play a crucial role. In the final countdown, before the implementation of the new tariffs, the United States reached a preliminary agreement with Mexico and Canada, granting a one-month pause before enforcing the announced tariffs. In the case of China, its response to the U.S. threat was to announce similar tariff increases on American products. Among European countries, there are different strategic approaches to the Trump Doctrine. The positions of the Paris-Berlin axis — ready to respond to U.S. tariff threats — and the Rome-Budapest axis are opposed. It remains to be seen whether Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who attended Trump's inauguration on January 20, will act as a mediator between the EU and the U.S. or if she will focus solely on securing a favorable position for Italy. Volatility, Uncertainty, Fluctuations A trade war affects foreign investments and creates volatility in financial markets due to the uncertainty it generates. Additionally, it reduces trade exchanges (imports-exports) and causes fluctuations in currency markets. The dilemma of “restructuring or rejection” posed by the Trump Doctrine involves the option of readjusting the existing order or entering into direct competition. For now, tensions remain high, and The Wall Street Journal, one of the major U.S. media outlets, describes the trade war as “absurd,” “unnecessary,” and “stupid.” The reality is that an atmosphere of international insecurity has been created regarding future investments, and stock markets have suffered losses. Meanwhile, the threatened countries insist they will enforce countermeasures, to which Trump responds by threatening to raise tariffs even further.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Russia President Vladimir Putin sent a guarded message of congratulations to Donald Trump on inauguration day, but then held a long direct call with his “dear friend,” Chinese leader Xi Jinping. From Putin’s perspective, this makes sense. Russia gets billions of dollars from energy sales to China and technology from Beijing, but from Washington, until recently, mostly sanctions and suspicion. Moscow is hoping for a more positive relationship with the current White House occupant, who has made his desire for a “deal” to end the Ukraine war well known. But talk of exit scenarios from this 3-year-old conflict should not mask the fact that since the invasion began, Putin has overseen one of the worst periods in Russian foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Transatlantic unity The war in Ukraine has foreclosed on options and blunted Russian action around the world. Unlike the annexation of Crimea in 2014, the 2022 invasion produced an unprecedented level of transatlantic unity, including the expansion of NATO and sanctions on Russian trade and finance. In the past year, both the U.S. and the European Union expanded their sanction packages. And for the first time, the EU banned the re-export of Russian liquefied natural gas and ended support for a Russian LNG project in the Arctic. EU-Russian trade, including European imports of energy, has dropped to a fraction of what it was before the war.   The two Nordstrom pipelines, designed to bring Russian gas to Germany without transiting East Europe, lie crippled and unused. Revenues from energy sales are roughly one-half of what they were two years ago.   At the same time, the West has sent billions in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, enabling a level of resilience for which Russia was unprepared. Meanwhile, global companies and technical experts and intellectuals have fled Russia in droves. While Russia has evaded some restrictions with its “shadow fleet” – an aging group of tankers sailing under various administrative and technical evasions – the country’s main savior is now China. Trade between China and Russia has grown by nearly two-thirds since the end of 2021, and the U.S. cites Beijing as the main source of Russia’s “dual use” and other technologies needed to pursue its war. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, Russia has moved from an energy-for-manufactured-goods trade relationship with the West to one of vassalage with China, as one Russia analyst termed it. Hosting an October meeting of the BRICS countries – now counting 11 members, including the five original members: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – is unlikely to compensate for geopolitical losses elsewhere. Problems at home... The Russian economy is deeply distorted by increased military spending, which represents 40% of the budget and 25% of all spending. The government now needs the equivalent of US$20 billion annually in order to pay for new recruits. Russian leaders must find a way to keep at least some of the population satisfied, but persistent inflation and reserve currency shortages flowing directly from the war have made this task more difficult. On the battlefield, the war itself has killed or wounded more than 600,000 Russian soldiers. Operations during 2024 were particularly deadly, producing more than 1,500 Russian casualties a day. The leader who expected Kyiv’s capitulation in days now finds Russian territory around Kursk occupied, its naval forces in the Black Sea destroyed and withdrawn, and one of its own generals assassinated in Moscow. But probably the greatest humiliation is that this putative great power with a population of 144 million must resort to importing North Korean troops to help liberate its own land. ...and in its backyard Moscow’s dedication to the war has affected its ability to influence events elsewhere, even in its own neighborhood. In the Caucasus, for example, Russia had long sided with Armenia in its running battle with Azerbaijan over boundaries and population after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Moscow has brokered ceasefires at various points. But intermittent attacks and territorial gains for Azerbaijan continued despite the presence of some 2,000 Russian peacekeepers sent to protect the remaining Armenian population in parts of the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. In September 2023, Azerbaijan’s forces abruptly took control of the rest of Nagorno-Karabakh. More than 100,000 Armenians fled in the largest ethnic cleansing episode since the end of the Balkan Wars. The peacekeepers did not intervene and later withdrew. The Russian military, absorbed in the bloody campaigns in Ukraine, could not back up or reinforce them. The Azeris’ diplomatic and economic position has gained in recent years, aided by demand for its gas as a substitute for Russia’s and support from NATO member Turkey. Feeling betrayed by Russia, the Armenian government has for the first time extended feelers toward the West — which is happy to entertain such overtures. Losing influence and friends Russia’s loss in the Caucasus has been dwarfed by the damage to its military position and influence in the Middle East. Russia supported the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad against the uprisings of the Arab Spring in 2011 and saved it with direct military intervention beginning in 2015. Yet in December 2024, Assad was unexpectedly swept away by a mélange of rebel groups. The refuge extended to Assad by Moscow was the most it could provide with the war in Ukraine having drained Russia’s capacity to do more. Russia’s possible withdrawal from the Syrian naval base at Tartus and the airbase at Khmeimim would remove assets that allowed it to cooperate with Iran, its key strategic partner in the region. More recently, Russia’s reliability as an ally and reputation as an armory has been damaged by Israeli attacks not only on Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed forces in Lebanon and Syria, but on Iran itself. Russia’s position in Africa would also be damaged by the loss of the Syrian bases, which are key launch points for extending Russian power, and by Moscow’s evident inability to make a difference on the ground across the Sahel region in north-central Africa. Dirty tricks, diminishing returns Stalemate in Ukraine and Russian strategic losses in Syria and elsewhere have prompted Moscow to rely increasingly on a variety of other means to try to gain influence. Disinformation, election meddling and varied threats are not new and are part of Russia’s actions in Ukraine. But recent efforts in East Europe have not been very productive. Massive Russian funding and propaganda in Romania, for example, helped produce a narrow victory for an anti-NATO presidential candidate in December 2024, but the Romanian government moved quickly to expose these actions and the election was annulled. Nearby Moldova has long been subject to Russian propaganda and threats, especially during recent presidential elections and a referendum on stipulating a “European course” in the constitution. The tiny country moved to reduce its dependency on Russian gas but remains territorially fragmented by the breakaway region of Transnistria that, until recently, provided most of the country’s electricity. Despite these factors, the results were not what Moscow wanted. In both votes, a European direction was favored by the electorate. When the Transnistrian legislature in February 2024 appealed to Moscow for protection, none was forthcoming. When Moldova thumbs its nose at you, it’s fair to say your power ranking has fallen. Wounded but still dangerous Not all recent developments have been negative for Moscow. State control of the economy has allowed for rapid rebuilding of a depleted military and support for its technology industry in the short term. With Chinese help and evasion of sanctions, sufficient machinery and energy allow the war in Ukraine to continue. And the inauguration of Donald Trump is likely to favor Putin, despite some mixed signals. The U.S. president has threatened tariffs and more sanctions but also disbanded a Biden-era task force aimed a punishing Russian oligarchs who help Russia evade sanctions. In the White House now is someone who has openly admired Putin, expressed skepticism over U.S. support for Ukraine and rushed to bully America’s closest allies in Latin America, Canada and Europe. Most importantly, Trump’s eagerness to make good on his pledge to end the war may provide the Russian leader with a deal he can call a “victory.” The shrinking of Russia’s world has not necessarily made Russia less dangerous; it could be quite the opposite. Some Kremlin watchers argue that a more economically isolated Russia is less vulnerable to American economic pressure. A retreating Russia and an embattled Putin could also opt for even more reckless threats and actions – for example, on nuclear weapons – especially if reversing course in Ukraine would jeopardize his position. It is, after all, Putin’s war. All observers would be wise to note that the famous dictum “Russia is never as strong as she looks … nor as weak as she looks” has been ominously rephrased by Putin himself: “Russia was never so strong as it wants to be and never so weak as it is thought to be.”

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском Finally, after many leaks, hints, intimations and procrastinations, US President Donald Trump might have come up with something a bit more specific than his initial general promises to put an end to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in 24 hours. For the first time a draft of his peace plan is on the table. The plan was revealed by various Ukrainian and European media last week and though it has never been officially confirmed by the White House or the State Department, there are reasons to believe that we indeed observe a gradual shaping of the new Administration’s position on arguably the most destructive and dangerous military conflict of our times. However, the devil is always in details. Let us have a closer look at what Trump has or may have in mind. Ceasefire According to the plan, the peace process should start with Presidents Putin and Zelensky having an urgent phone call followed by a face-to-face meeting no later than in the end of February or in the beginning of March. A complete ceasefire along the present line of contact should be in place by the day of 2025 Christian Easter (April 20) and European peacekeeping units will be asked to police a demilitarized zone separating the two sides (American troops will not have their boots on the ground). Shortly after that, by the time of the 80-year anniversary of the V-day in Europe (May 9), a comprehensive peace agreement should be signed and, if needed, ratified by the parties to the conflict. This is an exceptionally bold and ambitious time-table, but is it nonetheless realistic? First, it would be quite a challenge even to make Putin and Zelensky directly talk to each other. In fall of 2022, the Ukrainian President signed a special executive order forbidding himself engaging in any direct negotiations with his Russian counterpart. On the Russian side, there are serious doubts about the legitimacy of the Ukrainian leader since his term in power already expired in May of 2024 and no national elections have been held after that. More importantly, it would be very hard to enforce the ceasefire, if and when such a ceasefire is reached. The experience of the Minsk Agreement implementation and international monitoring is not very reassuring, and the line of contact today is much longer than it was back in 2015. To put together a well-trained and properly equipped international monitoring mission of tens of thousands uniformed men and women would be next to impossible, at least within the time framework suggested by the US Administration. Needless to say, Russia would hardly accept a EU/NATO peacekeeping mission on its territory. Territorial compromises Trump apparently suggests that both sides should stick to the territories that they now have under their control. This idea logically implies a demand for Kyiv to accept Russian sovereignty on the parts of the four former Ukrainian regions as well as on the Crimean Peninsula that was reunited with the Russian Federation eleven years ago after the referendum of March, 2014. The Ukrainian side should also withdraw from the Russian territories in the Kursk region that it currently occupies. In exchange Russia should stop its ongoing offensive in Donbass and limit its territorial acquisitions to what it already has in its possession. This proposal is clearly not exactly what either Kyiv or Moscow would like to see as the final peace settlement. In Ukraine, they still hope that at some point thy will be in a position to restore the territorial integrity of the country including what they lost back in 2014—namely, parts of Eastern Donbass and Crimea. The Russian leadership, in its turn, intends to capture at least all the remaining territories of the four regions that it does not fully control now (Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye) and maybe even to advance further West. (Kharkov, Odessa and so on). To reach a compromise between these two positions would be truly a formidable task. Future status of Ukraine According to Donald Trump, Ukraine should not become a NATO member—at least, in the foreseeable future. He remains skeptical about a possible Ukrainian contribution to the Alliance security, he does not want to enlarge the NATO’s zone of responsibility, and he does not want to cross Moscow’s red line on this very issue. However, Ukraine may still aspire to join the European Union before too long, and the United States is ready to assist Kyiv in meeting its European aspirations. A neutral status for Ukraine is something that many in Kyiv would lament and consider a serious setback, while many in Moscow would definitely appreciate and support. However, how can this neutrality be secured in the long term? After all, Ukraine has already been neutral; this status was explicitly stated in the very first declaration on Ukrainian sovereignty approved by the Ukrainian Parliament even before the Soviet disintegration and later on incorporated into the Ukrainian Constitution. And yet, since at least 2008 Kyiv was contentiously drifting away from this initial position; finally, the national Constitution was revised and the pro-Western Ukrainian political leadership started actively seeking membership in the North Atlantic Alliance. What would prevent future Ukraine from changing its mind once again in five or ten or twenty years from now, when neither Trump, nor Putin is around to stop it from moving in the NATO membership direction? Security guarantees Instead of offering Kyiv prompt NATO membership, Trump is ready to provide US security guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for getting for the US business a preferential access to valuable Ukrainian mineral resources—including natural gas, lithium, titanium and graphite. The United States will continue to assist Ukraine with military hardware deliveries till at least 2030, but these deliveries will no longer take form of charity—they should generate appropriate profits for the US defence sector and create jobs for American workers. This part of Trump‘s proposals remains highly ambiguous and unclear. What kind of security guarantees is the United States willing to offer Ukraine? Are we going to see US military bases on the Ukrainian soil or any other manifestations of the US military presence there? Is Trump ready to turn Ukraine into another Israel or another Japan? If this is the case, then does such an arrangement really differ a lot from a Ukrainian membership to NATO? Would Moscow easily accept a not-so-symbolic US military presence so close to its borders? The proposed US access to Ukraine’s natural resources also raises many questions. Ukraine indeed has repositories of valuable minerals (arguably amounting to USD 15 trillion of total value), but most of these repositories are located on the territories that are now controlled by Russia. Sanctions As an additional incentive for Moscow to demonstrate the needed flexibility, Trump offers Russia to lift economic sanctions as a part of the overall peace arrangement. He argues that the Western sanctions have a profound negative impact on the Russian economy, slow down Russia’s modernization and prevent the country from taking its rightful place within the international economic system. The prospect of lifting sanctions should therefore motivate the Kremlin to go for a reasonable compromise in order to put an end to the fratricidal conflict. This idea sounds great, but it seems that Trump offers more than he can deliver. First, Russia suffers more from the EU sanctions than from the US sanctions; the Russia-EU trade has always been significantly larger than the Russia-US trade. No US President can simply ‘order’ the European allies of the United States to completely reverse their current policy towards Moscow, even if the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is miraculously stopped. The odds are that the EU sanctions imposed on Moscow will be in place for a long time, even if the US sanctions are lifted. Second, even on the US sanctions lifting, Donald Trump is not that omnipotent. Some of these sanctions have been approved by the US Congress and have become national laws. To recall or even to ease them, one should pass an appropriate legislative decision on the Capitol Hill, which might turn out to be extremely complicated and protracted. Reconstruction of Ukraine Like in many other cases, Trump has absolutely no intention to spend large amounts of US taxpayer’s money on reconstructing such a distant land as Ukraine. Instead, the US President would like to impose this heavy burden on the European Union (exactly like he intends to impose the financial burden of Gaza reconstruction on the Arab Gulf states). The price tag of Ukraine’s reconstruction might amount to USD 500 billion, and EU should be prepared to annually allocate up to USD 50 billion for ten years. A part of the funding, however, can come from special duties imposed on Russia’s energy exports in exchange for lifting Western sanctions on the Russian hydrocarbons production. This part of Trump’s proposals is based on a number of arbitrary assumptions, which are hard to assess at this point. Nobody really knows how much the Ukrainian reconstruction will ultimately cost and how long time it will take. The actual financial capabilities of the European Union might turn out to be more modest than Trump apparently expects, especially given the fact that the US Administration’s wish list for Europe is not limited to supporting Ukraine only, but also includes more generous contributions to NATO, multiple trade concessions, more economic engagement in the Middle East and so on. Ukraine’s absorption capacity might turn out to be limited as well, given the present state of economic and administrative reforms, rampant corruption and the exodus of a large part of the county’s population to Europe. Finally, it is hard to imagine how Trump will convince Putin to pay duties on Russia’s energy exports, particularly when Trump remains committed to bringing the global energy prices down to the extent possible. European security So far, the Trump Administration has not been very prolific on how the settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict should affect a more general problem of the European security. Still, this dimension of a potential agreement has to be kept in mind, if the idea is to provide for a lasting peace in the Euroatlantic space. Russian officials have stated more than once that the ongoing conflict is not just a clash between Russia and Ukraine, but rather a standstill between Russia and the ‘collective West’. That implies that any settlement should include a broader range of arrangements on the future European security architecture, such as multilateral confidence building measures, mil-to-mil contacts at various levels and even some forms of conventional arms control in Europe. The problem is that Trump has never been particularly interested in any meaningful forms of multilateralism including multilateral arms control or confidence building measures. Moreover, he has always been skeptical of any arms control, bilateral including, regarding it as an unnecessary and potentially even harmful way to limit the US abilities to outspend and to outperform all its adversaries and rivals. This is why during his first term in power Trump decided to abandon the US-Soviet INF Treaty, was not eager to extend the New START Agreement and decided to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies. It is not clear how with such an attitude Donald Trump is planning to ensure that there will be no other dangerous crisis in Europe soon after a settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is reached. To sum up, it is definitely good news that Donald Trump has finally come with some kind of a peace plane for Ukraine. To have something to consider and to discuss is undoubtedly better than to have nothing and to speculate about what the White House may or may not offer. Still, the Trump plan in its current form is only half-baked. It might be the right first step, not much more than the very first step. A lot will now depend on the US Administration commitment, stamina, patience and its attention span. Peace talks are different from business negotiations that Trump is so used to. In business negotiation, you can accept failures to reach a good deal and you can move on to other opportunities, which you will always find around in plenty. In peace talks, failure is not an acceptable outcome. First published in the Guacha.

한국어로 읽기 Leer en español In Deutsch lesen Gap اقرأ بالعربية Lire en français Читать на русском With the arrival of the Donald Trump administration, trade relations between the United States and Canada have undergone significant changes, particularly in light of the introduction of new 25% tariffs on Canadian goods, including automotive products, steel, and aluminum. These measures are justified as a "national threat" due to migration and drugs [1]. In response, Canada imposed reciprocal measures worth $155 billion, affecting food products, alcohol, electric vehicles, and aerospace products [2]. Experts predict that these mutual restrictions could reduce Canada's GDP by 2.6%, while the U.S. GDP could decline by 1.6% [3]. Additionally, a revision of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is expected. The Trump administration intends to evaluate trade imbalances and their impact on jobs, which could lead to a shift from a trilateral agreement to bilateral agreements. Risks of this revision include tightening rules of origin for the automotive industry, pressuring Canada to open its dairy market, and using the USMCA as leverage to address border security and migration issues. There is also an expectation that the U.S. will attempt to include border security and military spending issues in trade negotiations [4]. Through these actions, the United States could push Canada toward closer dialogue with China, strengthening its role as an alternative market for Canadian resources and becoming another significant factor in the changing trade dynamics between the U.S. and Canada. In the midst of the trade war with the U.S., Canada was left without clear leadership due to the resignation of Justin Trudeau and the suspension of parliament until the end of March. Not only did this lead to a split within the Liberal Party, with its members simultaneously competing for leadership and attempting to formulate a response to the external threat, but the lack of a unified strategy also weakened the country's position in negotiations with the U.S. administration. Amid the crisis, the provinces took matters into their own hands, increasing pressure on Ottawa. The introduction of tariffs has caused a split between the provinces, whose economies depend on trade with the U.S. in different ways. Newfoundland Premier Andrew Furey called the tariffs an "existential threat" and demanded tough retaliatory measures, including sanctions on critical minerals important for the American industry [5]. Meanwhile, Ontario, home to the automotive industry, which accounts for about 25% of the province's GDP, is demanding an aggressive response from the federal government to the U.S. actions. Preparing for early elections, the province announced a $23 billion business relief package, as well as reciprocal tariffs on American goods, including alcohol and home appliances, setting a precedent for other regions [6]. Alberta, where oil and gas exports make up 68% of the economy, opposed the ban on shipments to the U.S. Premier Danielle Smith called such measures "harmful to Canadians" and urged targeted retaliatory actions, such as tariffs on goods from "red states" [7]. British Columbia and Quebec opted for symbolic sanctions. Premier David Eby, for instance, imposed a ban on alcohol imports from Republican states and announced a priority for Canadian goods in government procurement [8]. Quebec, whose aerospace industry is closely tied to the U.S., has so far limited itself to strong rhetoric. The conflict of interest also emerged in the issue of internal trade barriers. The Trudeau government announced plans to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers, which are said to reduce GDP by $130 billion annually [9]. However, provinces with developed agriculture (Manitoba, Saskatchewan) are blocking the liberalization of the meat market, while Ontario and Quebec are defending the retention of dairy quotas. Premier of Nova Scotia Tim Houston, as a symbol of this systemic issue, criticized the inability to "ship a bottle of wine across the provincial border" [10]. Interprovincial and intergovernmental escalation could strengthen Canadian regionalism. According to the "B.C. Economic Forecast", 25% tariffs could cost British Columbia 120,000 jobs, while Ontario would lose 200,000 [11]. This will likely lead to increased demands from regions for a redistribution of federal subsidies, becoming a factor that threatens the unity of the country. So far, provinces are acting separately, from Ontario’s push for infrastructure investments to British Columbia’s initiative to accelerate projects in remote regions. The federal government is facing criticism from opposition parties that are calling for more support for the population rather than businesses, warning of rising prices for food and fuel. The Conservatives and the New Democrats have responded decisively, urging immediate action to protect Canadian workers and industries from the impact of tariffs. Pierre Poilievre and Jagmeet Singh have demanded that the government implement protective measures, further intensifying the political discourse around trade and economic policy. While this situation risks deepening divisions between the federal and provincial governments, U.S. tariffs present an opportunity for political unity among parties that typically have differing views on trade. The immediate threat could force various factions within the Liberal Party to unite around a common strategy to combat U.S. trade aggression. This could strengthen Trudeau’s position, as he takes steps to address public concerns related to job losses and economic stability. However, the long-term consequences for Canada's domestic politics may extend beyond immediate economic issues. The tariffs have sparked noticeable public outrage in Canada. Many Canadians are bewildered by Trump’s actions, particularly given the historically close economic ties between the two countries. Canadians have begun to publicly express their displeasure, such as booing the U.S. national anthem at sporting events, which reflects deep frustration with Trump’s unilateral decision [12]. This reaction also indicates that American actions are perceived as an unfair attack on Canadian sovereignty and economic stability. A recent survey conducted by the Canadian Labour Congress revealed that a significant majority of Canadians (around 80%) believe that American tariffs will increase the cost of living in Canada and negatively affect relations with the U.S [13]. Nearly 90% of respondents support government investment plans aimed at strengthening the Canadian economy and protecting jobs from the adverse effects of these tariffs. In light of these events, a movement is growing among Canadians to prioritize domestic goods over American imports. Many citizens are actively seeking ways to support local businesses as a form of protest against Trump’s tariffs. Social media campaigns urging consumers to buy Canadian-made products are gaining momentum, and some citizens are even canceling plans to travel to the U.S. as a manifesto against American trade policies. If the government’s retaliatory measures do not yield favorable results or if they worsen the economic downturn, public discontent may intensify, leading to shifts in voter sentiment ahead of this year’s elections. Economic difficulties will turn into political challenges, as voters tend to hold the ruling parties responsible for perceived failures in managing trade relations. Moreover, as Canada reevaluates its trade strategies in light of the aggressive policies of the U.S., there may be calls for a more assertive approach to international trade agreements and partnerships outside the North American region, which could significantly alter the platforms of Canadian political parties. References [1] Imposing Duties To Address The Flow Of Illicit Drugs Across Our Northern Border. The White House Official Website. February 1, 2025. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-duties-to-address-the-flow-of-illicit-drugs-across-our-national-border/[2] Canada responded with $155 billion in mirror measures affecting food, alcohol, electric vehicles and aerospace products. Experts predict that these mutual restrictions could reduce Canada's GDP by 2.6% and the U.S.'s by 1.6%. CTV News. February 1, 2025. Available at: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/canada-to-slap-25-per-cent-tariff-on-155b-of-us-goods-after-trump-initiates-trade-war/[3] Trump’s 25% Tariff Threat: New Analysis Reveals Severe Economic Fallout for Both Canada and the U.S. Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s Business Data Lab (BDL). November 28, 2024. Available at: https://chamber.ca/news/trumps-25-tariff-threat-new-analysis-reveals-severe-economic-fallout-for-both-canada-and-the-u-s/[4] Experts React: Trump Just Slapped Tariffs On Mexico, Canada And China. What’s Next? Atlantic Council (признан нежелательной организацией в РФ). February 2, 2025. Available at: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react-trump-just-slapped-tariffs-on-mexico-canada-and-china-whats-next/[5] Premiers decry Trump's tariffs, announce countermeasures and call for federal response. CBC News. February 1, 2025. Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/several-premiers-decry-trump-s-tariffs-and-call-for-powerful-canadian-response-1.7448301[6] As Trump's tariffs become a reality, Ontario's party leaders pitch plans to respond. CBC News. February 1, 2025. Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/trump-tariffs-ontario-party-leaders-respond-1.7448203[7] 'It doesn't need to happen': Trump's tariffs rattle Alberta. Calgary Herald. February 1, 2025. Available at: https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/it-doesnt-need-to-happen-trumps-tariffs-rattle-alberta[8] Premier announces immediate response, vows to defend B.C. against Trump tariffs. Office of the Premier of British Columbia. February 1, 2025. Available at: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2025PREM0014-000077[9] Lack of federal leadership hurts Canada’s response to Trump tariff threat. Policy Options. January 29, 2025. Available at: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/january-2025/foreign-relations-confusion/[10]‘Time to fix this’: Could the tariff threat bring down Canada's interprovincial trade barriers, once and for all? Financial Post. January 30, 2025. Available at: https://financialpost.com/news/economy/tariffs-bring-down-canada-interprovincial-trade-barriers[11] Premier announces immediate response, vows to defend B.C. against Trump tariffs. Office of the Premier of British Columbia. February 1, 2025. Available at: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2025PREM0014-000077[12] Fans at Raptors game continue trend of booing US national anthem at pro sporting events in Canada. Asssociated Press. February 3, 2025. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/fans-boo-national-anthem-tariffs-canada-2c7210574c0373348870a94445814407[13] Canadians reject Trump’s tariff threats: New CLC poll. Canadian Labour Congress. January 23, 2025. Available at: https://canadianlabour.ca/canadians-reject-trumps-tariff-threats-new-clc-poll/