�鶹��ѡ

One of the problems with an on-going territorial war is complacency by those who are indirectly involved in the conflict. Too often an on-going war is displaced by other political challenges and events, and yet the war continues with lives, infrastructures and economies being destroyed. There is another danger related to the ill-informed becoming bored with the conflict and who seek to instigate a process of appeasement in which political, material, or territorial concessions are made to an aggressive power.

A key issue is how to conclude a war that results in a permanent solution. There have been too many instances where an unsatisfactory solution lays the foundations for future conflict. At the moment, there is a real danger that negotiations led by the United States will produce a conclusion to Russia’s war with Ukraine that will lead to more conflict.

There are many points to consider here. The most important is that Russia instigated an illegal war with Ukraine that initially led to the annexation of Crimea on 18 March 2014. There was then on-going conflict that took many forms that eventually led to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.

It is important to differentiate between nations that are offensive, or actively aggressive, and those that are defensive. Russia is an offensive state whilst NATO is a defensive political and military alliance. Russia has been at war with Europe for decades. These offensive activities are not usually defined as war, but the nature of war has changed. Russia’s activities include continually testing country’s response times and searching for areas of weakness. This includes attempts to manipulate the media, democratic elections and to interfere with critical national and international infrastructure. This includes cyberwarfare and sabotage of undersea cables that form the backbone of the internet. A new form of hybrid warfare is in play and Russia is one of the primary protagonists.

Donald Trump, the 47th U.S. President, likes to consider himself to be an expert deal maker. In 1987, he published a book under his authorship that was written by Tony Schwartz on the art of the deal. This book is an autobiography rather than an account of the principles of deal making. The problem Europe has is that Trump considers himself to be an excellent negotiator, but the reality is quite different.

A classic Trump strategy to control a debate is to argue that someone “could do much better”. This is classic Trump. Thus, his account of a service held at Washington National Cathedral as part of his inauguration was that “”. Trump applies this reading to Russia’s war with Ukraine by noting that Ukraine could have done so much better and that a “” negotiator could have secured a settlement years ago “without the loss of much land”. Such a half-baked negotiator would have agreed a bad deal that would have encouraged Russia to consider further territorial aggression.

One of Trump’s problems is that he believes that he is always right, and he is never interested in learning. There are many things that Trump needs to learn, and this includes how to negotiate a solution to a geo-political conflict. There are some remarkably simple principles.

First, never offer to negotiate when your opponent considers that they are winning. The time to offer terms is when you are winning. The tactic is to engage in activities to ensure that your opponent considers that they are in a weaker position. Trump has yet to learn this principle as it applies to geopolitics.

Second, as part of this tactic, when a country has experienced a series of setbacks and is losing territory in a war, then there is only one thing that can be done. This is to attack rather than capitulate. For Ukraine now is the time to maximise their response to Russia’s aggression.

Donald Trump may have the skills required to close a business deal, but quite a different approach is required to conclude a war. One of the challenges is that it is important to understand Russia.

Winston Churchill really understood the art of negotiation and geopolitics. In October 1939 he described Russia as “ ”. One way of interpreting this is that Russia is wrapped in a distorted social contract in which every Russian is promised greatness in return for their freedom, prosperity, and life. However, there is a more appropriate reading. To Vladimir Putin, the only thing which counts in the world of geopolitics is results. To Putin notions of legality and illegality do not matter as these concepts only apply to countries with a well-developed legal system. In this world view, there are no international laws; a dictator like Putin will engage in all types of illegal activities if he can get away with it. Of course, to Putin, these are never illegal activities.

The question for Ukraine, and other democratic European countries, is how far Trump is willing to capitulate to Putin. Any sign of capitulation will be seen by Putin as simultaneously a sign of weakness and encouragement for Russia to continue to apply offensive tactics. The only outcome will be more aggression. For Ukraine, the only option is to continue to respond to Russian aggression. For other democratic European countries, now is the time for a unified front and to appreciate that Europe’s future must be in their hands rather than those of Trump or Putin. To Trump, my only response is that ‘he could do so much better’, and that he needs some lessons on the art of the deal.