From the White House - Zelensky clash, the first real major defeat is diplomacy, not to mention the institutionalist convictions crumbled by the most violent realism. The first impression, banal, that one gets is that the meeting was organized in an amateurish way and conducted even more disastrously. It is inevitable to expect a dangerous disintegration of US-Ukraine relations and a complication of those with Europe already put to the test by the latest speech of vice president Vance.
If the impression of American unpreparedness is true, we should ask ourselves whether the Foggy Bottom team is up to the more or less sudden events and dynamics. While China and Russia are getting closer, even a mere ceasefire is moving away, with the Ukrainian president careful not to become the scapegoat for an agreement that does not provide security guarantees for Kiev. In fact, a situation has been triggered that all against all, where Russians and Chinese are wary of the USA which is increasingly elusive even for Brussels.
If there is one thing that now more than ever must be kept in mind by the new American Secretary of State, it is that foreign policy is far more complicated and dangerous than it appears, Kissinger docet.
To overcome the stalemate, time and strategy are needed, both of which are currently lacking, unlike the undiplomatic satisfaction of the American president at the end of a meeting that was already intoxicated from the beginning by Trump's verbal frivolities regarding the responsibility for the attack attributed to Kiev, in reality not only attacked but also mockingly considered reckless and responsible for the possible third world conflict.
What mistakes should be attributed to the US president and what to the Ukrainian president, who has made it clear that he does not like any form of imposed vassalage, given also the unusual nature of the simultaneous presence of a president who prefers not to discuss directly with his peers, delegating this to his vice president.
The skirmishes were grotesque, with the star-spangled presidential couple seeking support from the television audience and accusing Kiev of not wanting peace, an assist for Zelensky who blunted how Russia, despite being strong in constant cognitive disinformation, has occupied Ukraine since 2014, breaking the 2019 ceasefire agreement on Donbass. In short, a jumble of imprecise counter-top clichés that are not in keeping with a meeting that should have been of a high level. Zelensky may not seem to be very empathetic, but there seems to be no doubt that he is determined, also in light of the fact that since taking office in January, the current American administration has managed to undermine 80 years of Euro-American cooperation.
Zelensky touchy? Perhaps, but certainly living in an occupied country and, in some areas, sent back a few centuries by field artillery fire, certainly does not help one's character.
Zelensky badly dressed? That grisaille has another elegance is certain, that a purely symbolic outfit is mocked leads one to believe that semiotics (poor Prof. Eco) is practically unknown, even in the face of, moreover, the richest man in the world who, in the oval office, remains in a baseball cap and t-shirt. In short, trying to advertise Urbi et orbi what is in fact a commercial diktat imposed on a dying country without guarantees, was perhaps a bit too much, even if it could satisfy an electoral base to which it could now be interesting to propose surveys. The problem however is concrete because, in fact, Ukraine cannot help but sip the bitter cup of Washington's support which, moreover, presenting itself as a mediator, cannot sit alongside Kiev.
Given that behind Zelensky's back were the ghosts of hundreds of thousands of fallen Ukrainians and of what Europe has represented politically for centuries, was it really a success for Trump? There is also reason to doubt this in terms of internal political approval, so we can exclude the theory of premeditation to give credence to the worst, that of improvisation associated with the obstinacy of a Wall Street businessman who, pursuing only profit, throws away any ideology, where he has one, making a mistake, however, on a fundamental point: the Ukrainian crisis cannot be reduced to a mere financial issue because imperialism from the East will hardly limit itself to this, let alone MAGA. If the fronts have multiplied and expanded, it is probably due in large part to American political short-sightedness, net of the political majorities that have followed one another, facilitated by European inanity.
Who benefits from peace now? The answer is free and according to conscience, however it must be considered that if Ukraine is exhausted, the Russian aggressor is also in difficulty so much so that he had to accept - nothing less than - the fraternal help of North Korea. The one who is really missing, and still, is Europe, incapable of unmasking Russian bluffs.
Trump ideological heir of the more famous President Jackson, as hypothesized by Walter Russell Mead in 2016? That the juxtaposition is pleasant is unquestionable, especially for a businessman in need of noble fathers. The rereadings of the American political schools given by Mead, between the Hamiltonian, the Wilsonian, the Jeffersonian and the Jacksonian, should help to understand which and how many beliefs animate internationalism, realism, mercantilism, interventionism; Who can we effectively turn to in a constant defense of the common exceptionalist feeling, increasingly in danger and besieged by other emerging hegemonies? Mead with the schools approaches a political interpretation that is directed towards a Hamilton-like pragmatism, suitable for dealing with contemporary crises. Far from such enlightened realism, the aforementioned comparison between Trump and Jackson is to be explored further, if only for the significant biographical connotations different but with common populist instances; on closer inspection, perhaps the most genuine Jacksonian is Vance, given his family and formative experiences.
Jacksonian foreign policy is realistic, international relations are based on power relations, the furthest thing from the Wilsonian ideal. For a Jacksonian, war is too costly and puts Yankee prosperity at risk, but the military apparatus is fundamental for the guarantees it offers. Foreign policy understood in this way, while not isolationist, necessarily contemplates an undoubted advantage that must be pursued, which makes it easier to understand, precisely with Trump, the American withdrawal from the north-eastern Syrian border, with Turkey free to proceed with anti-Kurdish operations, and the subsequent abandonment of Afghanistan. What is not functional to American interests must be reviewed and it is a principle that also interested the Obama administration, albeit with different methods and styles.
In this regard, the analysis carried out by Germano Dottori is enlightening, in a context that considers political subjects like Trump as a historical coincidence. But a figure like Trump goes beyond this definition to be included among the responses to threats to American supremacy. In short, Trump it wasn't an accident but a strategic strengthening already introduced by Obama, aware of the post-Cold War hegemonic difficulties; Trump is the product of a sudden political polarization and disorientation derived from a moment of inescapable decline. Obama has assumed a Wilsonian posture, Trump a nationalist, careful about the use of military force related to economic security, aimed at reducing American political exposure.
Regardless of theoretical considerations, the risk is that Trump will once again reveal himself as he did in front of Zelensky, that is, the interpreter, simultaneously dramatic and grotesque, of a policy to be talk show.
Photogram: The White House
