By CLAUDIO KATZ*

Trump's predecessors assumed they would build the same quagmire the USSR faced in Afghanistan, but their plan backfired and the White House is now left at the Kremlin's expense.

Donald Trump is seeking to break Russia's alliance with China, to undermine the international network that his great competitor has forged. He is trying to bring Moscow closer to weaken Beijing, through a strategy that reverses the seduction implemented by the State Department under Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.

For several years, this policy has been supported by important White House advisers (Mearsheimer, Kennan), who emphasize the impossibility of simultaneously defeating Russia and China. They advocate concentrating forces against the economic rival, while conciliating with the geopolitical adversary.

But this Cold War maneuver differs from the past due to the great productive weakness of the United States. The first power does not compete with an economically inferior actor, as was the Soviet Union, but with an Asian locomotive that tends to displace the hegemon in decline.

On the other hand, Russia has no urgency or immediate interest in negotiating on the terms that Donald Trump envisions. It has entered into a defensive alliance with China that began on a commercial level, extended to the economy and is now emerging as a military safeguard. The two powers are converging in their resistance against the same aggressor.

Russia needs to counter the military siege that NATO is promoting by installing missiles aimed at Moscow. The Pentagon began this harassment with the “color revolutions” that installed puppet governments of the United States in the region. With the same intention, it promoted the war in Ukraine, expanded the militarization of Europe and forced the alignment of traditionally neutral countries (such as Sweden and Finland).

China is under the same siege, through new agreements with Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and the Philippines, which the White House has forged to harass its rival. To increase this tension, the State Department is increasing the supply of weapons to Taiwanese separatists, calling into question the “one China” principle, which articulates the territorial integrity of the eastern giant.

The transformation of a marginal Asian economy into the greatest rising power of the 21st century is based on reversing its national fracture. Washington knows that the recovery of Hong Kong was a milestone in this change and is planning operations to prevent Taiwan from following the same path. Beijing, for its part, is strengthening an alliance with Moscow to tip the balance of this outcome. Donald Trump is betting on breaking this agreement, but he has few resources to achieve this rupture.

The Kremlin has no economic urgency to negotiate with the White House. Western sanctions have failed, and Russia has replaced the loss of the European gas market with new and lucrative Asian demand. With these revenues, it has maintained its trade surplus, preserved the stability of the ruble, and financed war spending in Ukraine (Mearsheimer, 2023).

This sequence illustrates the fragility of Western strikes against a major economy. It has been shown that there are options against Yankee harassment, and that the harasser can end up favoring the harassed.

Misfortunes in Ukraine

Vladimir Putin is also in no hurry to reach an agreement with Donald Trump on the military front. After three years of bloody battles, he is winning the war in Ukraine. True, he failed to bury the Kiev government with a lightning operation and had to retreat to the border areas and wage a fierce war of position. But Ukraine has been completely demolished, with 700.000 casualties and a recruitment crisis that prevents it from replacing troops.

Kiev also does not have enough artillery to counter the barrage of bombs it receives, nor is it able to maintain such extensive trenches, with resources that are more easily replaced by the enemy.

Volodymyr Zelensky has tried to compensate for these adversities with adventurous operations to enter and bomb Russian territory or with terrorist attacks carried out by jihadist partners. But his recent failed counteroffensive has worsened the devastation in Ukraine and increased general discouragement regarding the development of the conflict.

Vladimir Putin has made his warnings of deadly responses to a further NATO escalation credible. Faced with the “existential risk” that this offensive poses to Russia, he has allowed the recruitment of more troops in case the conflict spreads to other neighboring countries. He has also modified military doctrine to expand the options for using nuclear weapons.

His warnings took on new significance after he secured his internal authority by dissolving the paramilitary group led by Prigozhin. This cleansing brought cohesion to the army structure, which was threatened by the prominence of private militias.

With this consolidation, Vladimir Putin is preparing to negotiate the future of Ukraine under the terms of the Primakov Doctrine. This code presupposes Yankee recognition of Russia's geopolitical centrality and the end of NATO missiles in Eastern Europe.

The Russian leader will not only discuss how Ukraine will be divided into two countries, which regions will be annexed and what guarantees the region will be demilitarized, which will remain under Western protection. He will also demand that the armistice set a precedent for other unresolved conflicts in the post-Soviet space. He will demand an end to Pentagon interference in Moldova, Romania, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Vladimir Putin is also in no political hurry to reach an agreement with Donald Trump. He secured his long term in office with another electoral victory, in Russia’s opaque electoral system, and he achieved this advantage with a higher voter turnout than in previous contests.

The Kremlin leader has taken advantage of this confirmation to strengthen his authoritarian profile and to reinforce the criminalization of any significant dissent. He is benefiting from the continued passivity of the people, which has not been changed by the war in Ukraine. On the contrary, the government has taken advantage of this conflict to recreate nationalism and recruit young people from impoverished areas. These sectors have shown great willingness to sacrifice their lives on the front lines in exchange for some pay and pensions for their families.

With his usual arrogance, Donald Trump promised to resolve the war in Ukraine within hours, but he will negotiate with Vladimir Putin from a defensive position. Since the Maidan uprising and the mini-war in Donbas, his predecessors have failed in the trap they tried to set for Russia. They assumed they could force the same quagmire that the Soviet Union faced in Afghanistan, and so they sabotaged every attempt to stop the bleeding in Ukraine. But their plan backfired, and the White House is now at the Kremlin’s expense.

It is true that Washington has subjugated Europe, expanded NATO, militarized the Old Continent and introduced a Russophobia that fuels the growth of the far right. But Moscow's victory on the battlefield puts the United States in a very bad position in any negotiations.

In this discussion, Donald Trump focuses on gaining advantages in the business of rebuilding Ukraine. This country has had 70% of its economic structure completely demolished. Industry has been pulverized, the trade deficit has tripled, and grain exports have collapsed. In addition, capitalists have fled the country, emptying bank reserves, and the previous demographic decline is accentuated by the loss of young people in the trenches (Roberts, 2023).

This catastrophe is great news for the merchants of death. Ukraine has been the breadbasket of Europe and has been on the international podium for the production of barley, wheat and sunflower oil. It is highly coveted by ten agricultural corporations, which hope to appropriate a third of the country's fertile land.

The IMF actively promotes other transfers with adjustment plans, which Volodymyr Zelensky implements by demolishing the labor code, banning strikes and outlawing trade unions. The country also has a large reserve of rare earths and minerals coveted by digital giants.

The neoliberal willingness to sell all these assets is openly exposed by Volodymyr Zelensky’s corrupt ministers, who have Javier Milei as their main international economic reference. This admiration confirms the numerous similarities between Ukraine and Argentina’s prostration before its creditors (Castiglioni; Cantamutto, 2022).

Kiev will emerge from the war completely mortgaged, with monumental debts to Pentagon contractors. Donald Trump wants to take advantage of this subjugation to hand over the management of reconstruction to Black Rock (and other investment funds) (Marco del Pont, 2023). But these deals require a favorable scenario, in negotiations that are shaping up to be very adverse for the United States.

*Claudio Katz is professor of economics at Universidad Buenos Aires. Author, among other books, of Neoliberalism, neodevelopmentalism, socialism (popular expression) [https://amzn.to/3E1QoOD].

Translation: Fernando Lima das Neves.

References

Mearsheimer, John (2023). The darkness that unfolds: where the war is headed in Ukraine 05/07 (See here)

Roberts, Michael (2023). Russia-Ukraine: a year of war and its economic consequences 01/03 (look here)

Castiglioni, Lucas; Cantamutto, Francisco (2022). IMF and Ukrainian debt crisis

Marco del Pont, Alejandro (2023). The ceremony of permanent confusion (see here)