The latest so-called "peace plan" to come out of the orifice that is the Trump White House has been widely denounced as a farce or even Kremlin-sourced. More pointedly it has been called "amateurish," which is a fairly accurate description.
Essentially it is:
"Ukraine, sign a nebulous deal with a war criminal who is notorious for breaking deals, and give him most of what he wants, in return for some 'security guarantees' from us who provided you with worthless security guarantees in the past."
It is easy to see how this will "plan" will hit the buffers and go nowhere.
Of course, it's not yet clear exactly how this war will end or who will come out on top. But that may ultimately be a secondary consideration, because what this war is now really about is America's position in the world and more especially its rapid shrinkage in power, credibility, and influence.
Earlier Presidents acted as if they intuited this danger. They seemed to know that America wasn't really a country that could fight wars despite its superpower branding, and so generally avoided them.
The exception was what happened after 9-11. But compare that to what happened after "12-7" (or the 7th of December 1941), when America was attacked at Pearl Harbour. Then America acted like a colossus, taking a dominant role in crushing Germany and Japan, and then changing the world order. This was rebuilt around American power, which was based on the idea that every other country would, more or less, get a fair shake from the system.
The exception was what happened after 9-11. But compare that to what happened after "12-7" (or the 7th of December 1941), when America was attacked at Pearl Harbour. Then America acted like a colossus, taking a dominant role in crushing Germany and Japan, and then changing the world order. This was rebuilt around American power, which was based on the idea that every other country would, more or less, get a fair shake from the system.
Compare this, then, with what we got after 9-11: merely some inglorious invasions of sandy backwaters, at least one of which was mainly done to please the Israelis, followed by failed exercises in nation-building and pathetic hand-wringing about a few thousands US causalities.
America had to work extra hard to stop the rest of the World finding out just how weak it had become, but largely managed it because it could hide behind its vast array of allies.
America had to work extra hard to stop the rest of the World finding out just how weak it had become, but largely managed it because it could hide behind its vast array of allies.
Now, however, the war in the Ukraine is showing, with each new development, just how weak America is. It started the war with reasonable caution, because Russia is, after all, a nuclear power, but with a strong commitment to support the victim of Russian aggression. Money and weapons poured in and America almost matched its European allies in this.
In those first two years of the war, it earned its share of the glory in keeping the Russians pinned to relatively small gains in exchange for horrendous losses in both blood and money. If anything, as Russia stalled, America started looking stronger than it really was.
In those first two years of the war, it earned its share of the glory in keeping the Russians pinned to relatively small gains in exchange for horrendous losses in both blood and money. If anything, as Russia stalled, America started looking stronger than it really was.
In a nutshell, the cautious support for Ukraine was a relatively low-risk and low-cost means of building up American power and, as we now see with the growing damage to Russia's flailing economy and much-abused military, a continuation of this would probably have seen Russia collapse sometime this year.
But instead of what would have been a flattering geopolitical victory, we got Donald Trump and his frankly moronic "peace posturing" in which he repeatedly blamed the invaded country for starting the war, while also greatly overestimating Russian power.
Worse then this, there was the total disrespect shown to NATO allies, who were reluctant to give Trump the well-deserved slap in the face that he deserved due to his "madman" tariff terrorism. Instead, they used subtler methods to push back on his Kremling-friendly idiocy or simply decided to wait until Trump's 'shit-plomacy' fell apart under its own internal contradictions.
Worse then this, there was the total disrespect shown to NATO allies, who were reluctant to give Trump the well-deserved slap in the face that he deserved due to his "madman" tariff terrorism. Instead, they used subtler methods to push back on his Kremling-friendly idiocy or simply decided to wait until Trump's 'shit-plomacy' fell apart under its own internal contradictions.
Being cautious when confronted with a madman is not cowardice or compliance. The Europeans have, individually or collectively, decided to humour the madman at least until his domestic political rivals can place restraints on him or cart him off to electoral Bedlam.
The Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) deal they got out of Trump in July ensures that US weapons continue to flow to Ukraine, while those same nations are working hard to bolster their own armaments industries, along with Ukraine itself, which is now a major armaments hub producing very successful weapons as testified by burning Russian oil refineries.
The Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) deal they got out of Trump in July ensures that US weapons continue to flow to Ukraine, while those same nations are working hard to bolster their own armaments industries, along with Ukraine itself, which is now a major armaments hub producing very successful weapons as testified by burning Russian oil refineries.
But the bottom line is this: in the first year of the war American help was vital. In the fourth and fifth years of the war, it is a lot less important.
This means that although Europe and NATO still would like America -- and its lame-duck President -- to be on board, they are quite happy to find alternatives and work-arounds that by-pass America. But, more importantly, they don't think of America the same way they thought of America before.
This means that although Europe and NATO still would like America -- and its lame-duck President -- to be on board, they are quite happy to find alternatives and work-arounds that by-pass America. But, more importantly, they don't think of America the same way they thought of America before.
Now America is simply viewed as an amoral and unpredictable mess; think a bigger version of Saudi Arabia or Nayib Bukele's El Salvador. On a good day, they might view America as a kind of Western Hemisphere version of Modi's India; on a bad day, as a kind of effete Russia with a White House instead of a Kremlin.
So, whatever happens in Ukraine -- a Kremlin collapse or even a Russian pyrrhic victory (the only one they are capable of) -- the real result of this war is that a formerly dominant global power, liked and admired by most of the World, will be seen as a shrunken husk occupied by a race of midget politicians, regardless of whether they are MAGA or not.
Some Americans may be happy with this result and say a hearty good riddance to "entangling alliances," but there will be plenty of domestic consequences to this retreat from the world and the torching of American credibility and soft power.
___________________________________
Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.
Follow on Twitter and Bluesky
Follow on Twitter and Bluesky

Not quite.
ReplyDeleteThe first problem with this analysis is that it ignores America's pivot to the Pacific and seeing China as the greater threat. Russia can be contained by Europe without America; China can ignore Europe entirely. Trump is much more interested in naval power in the Pacific compared to tank armies in Poland, and is taking the offensive in the Caribbean to stop Chinese fentanyl.
The second issue is that Trump has been ripsawing as a negotiating tactic since he took office again. How it works is: 1) Trump says or does something unconventional or taboo, 2) the conventional wisdom loses its head and draws simplistic conclusions, 3) Trump suddenly reverses himself and nobody sees it coming, 4) Trump gets what he wants from all sides. In the case of Ukraine, Trump has ripsawed between looking pro-Russian, sending bigger munitions than Biden did, trying to cut lucrative mineral deals with Ukraine, and strategically embarrassing Russia/Iran by negotiating a peace treaty with Armenia/Azerbaijan. The ripsawing is deliberate, and meant to bait premature hysterics from his opponents. It is also the only reason Europe is rearming instead of staying disarmed, as it did from 1991-2022. Europe's leaders had to panic into overreacting before they'd stop cutting their military budgets to dump on welfare for illegal migrants; should they need to fight civil wars from this, this rearmament will also be invaluable.
Thirdly, the post-9/11 wars were very decisive; America toppled Saddam and the Taliban very quickly, and the Israelis were appalled that America would want to remove the former instead of keeping him as a counterweight to Iran. The long-term stagnation was due to a lack of a game plan for ending the war, a failed mentality that the west has been clinging onto since 1945.
Yes, the old 4D chess theory, LOL. I never bought into that. Trump is just a corrupt geopolitical idiot.
DeleteI agree that Europe is more than "capable" economically and militarily of containing Russia but that doesn't mean that it will. It lacks a certain martial spirit, ruthless, and readiness to spill blood, combined with a desire to pass the buck, especially the further West you go.
The USA, under Trump, is making extremely sub-optimal realpolitik decisions, as it risks Putin pulling off some kind of win in Ukraine that would then embolden China, and once China decides to move in East Asia, America on its own will be relatively powerless to stop it.
To make it crystal clear, even when America had much greater "vril" and a massive technological lead (and also had allies), it struggled against the Koreans and Communist Chinese, and then lost pitifully against the Vietnamese. The idea that a country like that will fend off Xi's China on its own seems wildly optimistic.
The best route for America to win geopolitically is to take the relatively easy win over Russia, crush Putinism, and "isolate" China with the help of Europe. Even that would be difficult. But any other path, except total isolationism, will be a lot more difficult. Electorally total isolationism is popular, but China is not about to reciprocate, and in such a case Latin America will soon fall under its sway.
Ripsawing and 4D chess are two different things. Ripsawing is the political equivalent of offering one's arm to an attack dog because the moment the dog bites (and it will), its throat is wholly exposed to the knife held in the other hand. When dealing with unimaginative, predictable opponents it's the easiest strategy in the world. Trump didn't rise to prominence before 2016 by being an idiot; dismissing him as "corrupt" or "stupid" is how his opponents keep underestimating him and losing.
DeleteOr, if you want to see a good pop culture illustration (either the stage play or the 1968 film), I recommend "The Lion in Winter," a political drama where every player makes outlandish demands in order to provoke impulsive bad decisions from each other. No social media required, just human nature.
Europe certainly was happy to let America handle Ukraine and keep weakening itself morally as you described. Trump's ripsawing is the only reason they are accidentally doing anything positive. At a minimum, Europe is now acting more like allies and less like vassal states.
Given Trump's arming of Ukraine & attempts at strategic isolation of Russia, the only supports being given to Russia are verbal. When Russia rejected Trump's deadline, they got the same results as Iran when they ignored theirs; suddenly things started exploding that were previously considered safe. Sending the munitions to Ukraine first was just a formality. As for China, Trump is spending a lot of effort on our allies there, and integrating South Korean shipbuilding in Philadelphia is just one easy example of the ties being built.
Your examples of Korea and Vietnam are bad history; in Korea, the Norks lost their modern army at Inchon, and played second fiddle after the Chinese intervened. China lost 1 million men to America's 30,000 and the only reason the Chinese weren't enveloped and destroyed in a similar fashion was Truman's decision to not seek victory lest it lead to WW3. Vietnam did not defeat the USA, the USA forced a shitty peace treaty on its ally and then cut off all aid (something that could happen to Ukraine if Europe doesn't step up); the North Vietnamese needed America to hold the South Vietnamese head underwater in order to win, just like how Mao needed George C. Marshall to backstab Chiang Kai-shek in 1947. It's not a question of virility.
Trump is no isolationist, and is working against Chinese influence in Latin America; a 3-star general resigned in protest over it.
The UK's National Army Museum puts K-war casualties at:
DeleteBritish forces: Over 1,100 killed and 2,600 wounded.
USA Nearly 37,000 killed and 92,000 wounded.
South Korean forces: At least half a million killed or wounded.
Chinese forces: Over 110,000 killed and 380,000 wounded.
North Korean forces: At least half a million killed or wounded.
Hate to think what would have happened to the poor little American army if they hadn't had allies, and it would obviously be a lot worse today. The US's only options against China are (1) retreat from China's back yard or (2) help crush Russia and thus "isolate" China. Even these two options are far from easy.
Calling Trump "stupid" is not underestimating him. Being seen as "stupid" is essential to success in American politics. It is why Bush senior lost, why Clinton put on his "Bubba" act, why the simian-faced GW Bush beat Gore, etc., etc. Calling an American politician "stupid" is to effectively to anoint him or her with power, which is why I think MTG will be your next President.
I'm curious as to how the UK National Army Museum came to the conclusion that the Chinese only lost ~100K killed and ~300K wounded over the course of the entire war. The Chinese lost over 100K men in April-May 1951 alone. The total number of Chinese killed/wounded is closer to 1 million.
DeleteThe 'poor little American Army' contributed 144,173 men to the fight; the 2nd and 3rd largest contributions were British (5,017) and Turkish (3,349). The only other countries to contribute more than 1,000 men were Australia (1,591), Canada (1,396), and France (1,135). Everybody else contributed even fewer. The suggestion that the American Army would have been helpless without allies is laughable from a raw numbers perspective; the main benefit of allies was their contribution of elite troops.
Korea was a squandered victory because of bad strategy, not because of a lack of virility.
Alas, MTG is retiring from politics, so you'll need to find someone else to speculate upon.
I'm quite happy to take the numbers of the UK National Army Museum, while you are free to take a more "subjective" approach to stats. Also, you completely forgot about the South Koreans in your list of allies.
DeleteAnyway, all this is irrelevant as everybody, including the Chinese, know that America would never be able to take even 5% of the casualties it took in the Korean War. The only thing that keeps China in check are economic concerns based on the global system that Trump is cheerfully dismantling.
I hope you're right about MTG but I have my doubts that she'll disappear from politics.
The numbers you call 'subjective' are the commonly-accepted numbers from the time and the postwar period. Admittedly, getting accurate numbers from the communist sources is difficult, but given their nonexistent medical care it is unlikely that they miraculously suffered fewer casualties than the South Koreans (415,004 killed, 428,568 wounded, ~10,000 POW).
DeleteI didn't 'forget' the South Koreans; since they were defending their country/homeland from invasion, it would be odd to use describe them synonymously with the outsiders who were sent to their aid. It was their war, first and foremost, and they did more fighting/dying than any other free nation.
Are you suffering meme-itis? 5% of ~30,000 American casualties is 1,500. Suggesting any modern military will collapse from so few losses is wishful thinking at best.
What's keeping China in check is not purely economic concerns, although they are relevant. China's military is weak and untested, and every time they try to fight in Africa or Asia, they get clobbered. They would prefer to blockade Taiwan (similar to the Soviet blockade of Berlin) rather than start a war, fail to present a fait accompli, and then have an unsinkable aircraft carrier shooting back at their navy/ports. China is supporting Russia to begin its own war economy mobilization, and invited Russia to train its airborne forces to increase its Taiwan-invasion options. The notion that economics holds them back is as unconvincing as the pre-2022 idea that Russia was held back from invading Ukraine by those same market forces.
Americans have had no stomach for real overseas war since Vietnam. The way they were driven out of the Lebanon in the 1980s by a single car bomb proved that beyond a doubt, which is why New York and Washington had to be "directly attacked" for them to temporarily reverse course. They also have remarkably little stomach even for near-zero-casualties "gunboat," "fly-by," or "peace-keeping" operations, which is why they elected Trump and why Trump is fast becoming unpopular because he quite likes those options.
DeleteAmerica is simply not a serious imperial or global power - nothing to be ashamed of - and should not be thought of as one. No Americans are going to die to stop Taiwan going back into China. China's military is probably a lot weaker than it likes to make out, as you suggest, but it won't be the hollowed-out husk of corrupt scams and rusting equipment that the Russian army proved to be, and the Chinese will be constantly improving and will move when ready.
At the moment the Chinese plan is to achieve a quick victory rather than a drawn out slog or blockade. This preference is because the latter would probably involve broad economic sanctions from America and Europe - as well as Taiwan hitting back - which could destabilize China economically. With a quick victory, you get a Crimea 2014 scenario (or better) and a quick return to normal economic relations.