Christopher Ford looks at Trump-Putin Axis of reaction busy setting the ground for betrayal while Europe toys with a partition plan leaving Ukraine under occupation
The Trump – Putin Axisis undoubtedly having significant implications for Ukraine and the wider world, the fact neither a ceasefire nor peace has been achieved to-date is not a surprise, the lives of Ukrainians are not the primary objective of this process but a rapprochement between the United States and Russia.
Symptomatic of this turn was seen on 2nd April when President Trump imposed sweeping tariffs, including on Ukraine and already sanctioned Syria but Russia and its supplier North Korea did not feature on the tariffs list.
This new alignment is also not entirely a revelation and was already indicated in advance of Trump taking office on 20 January, most notably in summer 2023 when Republicans moved to block crucial aid package to Ukraine that lasted nine months.
The Trump’s team and the MAGA movement has long been permeated by figures who have done business with and are sympathetic to Russia. But this rapprochement of the rival oligarchies goes deeper, the US reactionary right considers key features of Putin’s Russia, of national chauvinism, white supremacy, Christian conservativism, fascistic theories of Alexandr Dugin, a view of sovereignty based on dominance of others, as its own shared ideology.
Such an alignment between apparent enemies is not unprecedented. China reduced (and later ended) aid to North Vietnam in its reproachment with the USA helping prolong the Vietnam War, but the closest antecedent is the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the non-aggression treaty in 1939 between Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union.
Whilst it is true Trump-Putin are not identical to those tyrants, nor are we poised to commence a World War, there is a similarity in terms of the scale of retrogressive change in global politics and ideological consequences.
The Communists and sections of the left supported the 1939 pact, blaming France and Britain as responsible for the war not Hitler, while others, like George Orwell saw it as a betrayal of the left. Similarly, those in the labour movement who have opposed Ukraine’s fight for freedom now find their views aligned with MAGA Republicans.
The Trump-Putin Axis has shown us that we cannot afford to disconnect domestic anti-fascism and anti-fascism on the international scene, the fight for freedom of Ukraine is intimately connected to the struggle against reaction globally, something illustrated by the displays of support for Ukraine on anti-Trump protests in the USA.
Hypocritical Outrage
After three years of war Ukraine is vulnerable to the threat posed by Trump and Putin. It is a situation caused by the failures of then dominant factions of the ruling class in the key Western democracies, the USA, UK, Germany, and France.
Their moral outrage over current American duplicity is particularly hypocritical considering their response to the worst war in Europe since World War II, one riddled with critical missteps, failing to deter Russia’s full-scale invasion and to effectively arm Ukraine. In the lead-up to the invasion as Russia amassed troops on the border, they neither imposed significant sanctions on Russia nor provided substantial military assistance to Ukraine. Inadequate sanctions were placed on Russian oil exports, still funding Putin’s war machine to the tune of billions of dollars per month.
The strategy of supporting Ukraine “for as long as it takes”, rather than providing the weapons to end the occupation as soon as possible, is a proven a failure, from the outset this hesitation prevented a Ukrainian victory and prolonged the war.
These are not the only causes for Ukraine’s current vulnerability. Equally important is the internal failure of the Ukrainian government to fully harness the resources of the economy for the war effort and ensure the welfare of the people. In contrast, Russia has reconfigured to a war economy with defence spending at its highest since the Cold War.
The obstruction to economic reform has been a combination of the self-interest of Ukrainian capitalists, free-market zealots in Ministries and the role of global capital.
There is an additional contributory factor to Ukraine’s current predicament, which is the response of the European (and North American) labour movements to the Russian invasion. Whilst most of the labour movement has opposed the invasion, there has been a restraint to the point of silence in advocacy for the necessary aid to defeat Russia.
Swathes of the labour movement have failed to recognise the threat posed by the evolution of the oligarchy in Moscow into a fascist dictatorship, and now with the arrival of incipient fascist oligarchy in Washington they have combined not only to the detriment of Ukraine but to threaten democracy more widely by fuelling fascist and authoritarian forces globally.
Ukraine is on the frontline of the battle for democracy but not only for the freedom of Ukrainians, their fate is intimately linked to the fight against this new global reaction.
The global realignment
The global realignment of USA is a combination of accommodation, with Russia and increased deterrence as regardsChina. There are many possible outcomes of this process, but a reproachment can continue without any viable peace in Ukraine, as historian Timothy Snyder has argued, “So far, it’s a war-mongering process. American policy under Trump has been thus far to make the war easier for Russia and harder for Ukraine.”
The forging of this axis began with Trump’s call to Putin on 12 February, where they agreed to reset relations and re-establish dialogue on “topics of mutual interest’. From the start the realignment has been characterised by Ukraine and Europe being peripheral to the negotiations, and Russia being subject to no equivalent pressure to concede anything beneficial Ukraine toward a cessation of the fighting.
At the NATO headquarters in Brussels on 12 February US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s set the scene stating it was “unrealistic” to assume that Ukraine would return to its pre-2014 borders, ruling out NATO membership, and that the US was primarily focused its own national interests first and Trump would set the agenda. “What he decides to allow and not allow is at the purview of the leader of the free world, of President Trump”.
The Riyadh Summit on 18 February saw US Secretary of State Marco Rubio meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, indicative of the two oligarchies the teams also included Trump’s foreign envoy Steven Witkoff, a billionaire real estate investor, and Kirill Dmitriev a sovereign wealth fund chief on the Russian side. They set a goal for return to business as usual, to take steps to normalise diplomatic relations and to begin working on a Ukraine peace, and above all to explore closer economic cooperation.
The Summit was followed sharply by Trump repeating disinformation that Ukraine has started the war refusing to refer to Russia as the aggressor, and on 24th February at the United Nation the US voted with Russia, China, Belarus, North Korea, and Israel against a resolution condemning the invasion of Ukraine.
The Trump administration moved to disband task forces combating Russian disinformation, preventing sanctions evasion by Russian oligarchs, and investigating Russian war crimes in Ukraine, and suspended offensive cyber operations against Russia. The US began reducing troop numbers in Poland involved in supply of aid to Ukraine.
Having set the scene for betrayal the Trump administration set out its transactional agenda in what Trump has described as “dividing up certain assets”, Russia would retain occupied Ukrainian territory, sanctions would eventually be lifted, the un-occupied Ukraine reduced to a neo-colonial position with Trump demanding Ukraine repay the U.S, $500 billion, four times the aid received under Biden, by surrendering 50% of proceeds from national resources such a minerals. Additionally, Ukraine was expected to repay twice the value of any future U.S. aid, amounting to 100% interest.
Ukraine’s request for security guarantees to safeguard itself from renewed Russian aggression, was in Trump’s view a matter for the Europeans, and the White House made clear that accepting the mineral deal was a precondition of Zelensky meeting Trump on 28 February.
What ensued was the clearly orchestrated attack by Trump and Vice President JD Vance, on Zelensky in the Oval office, with Zelensky subsequently asked to leave the White House.
Coercion on Ukraine
What followed has demonstrated that the primary objective of Washington is reproachment with Russia, with a possible end of the current phase of the war being one means to that goal. To achieve this Washington has resorted to coercion and delegitimising of Zelensky to compel Ukraine to accede to Trump’s conditions, accusing Ukraine of a lack of commitment to peace.
On 3rd MarchTrump suspended all military aid to Ukraine, followed two days later by the suspension of intelligence sharing critical for operations on the battlefield and advance warning of air attacks on civilians. Elon Musk joined with veiled threats of suspending the Starlink satellite system in Ukraine. Russia responded by launching more than 80 missiles and 1,550 attack drones at Ukraine.
This was coupled by efforts to de-legitimise President Zelensky and undermine the Ukrainian government – Trump having branded Zelensky “a dictator without elections”, joined by Tulsi Gabbard Director of National Intelligence falsely claiming, “Kyiv had cancelled elections and silenced its political opposition’, and Elon Musk “called on Zelensky to leave to another country to avoid corruption charges”. All echoing the Kremlin’s own desire for regime change in Ukraine whilst at the same time senior members of Trump’s administration held secret discussions with political opponents to Zelensky, Yulia Tymoshenko and senior members of the party of Petro Poroshenko.
U.S. actions directly assisted Russia with a counter-offensive reversing Ukrainian gains in the Kursk region, under pressure Zelensky stated Ukraine was ready to sign a deal with the US over mineral deposits, on 11th March following talks in Saudi Arabia, Ukraine agreed to the Trump ceasefire proposal.
Safe in the knowledge the U.S. would not act against them, after Putin spoke with Trump on 18th March, the Kremlin did not reciprocate but agreed to refrain from attacks on energy infrastructure, in the same vein after further talks on 25th March in Riyadh the White House announced an agreement to “ensure safe navigation” in the Black Sea. But the Kremlin responded to say it will only agree provided financial sanctions on Russian institutions are lifted.
Russia has throughout responded with maximalist demands as regards peace whilst simultaneously continuing to bomb civilian areas. On 2nd April Putin signed a decree authorizing the conscription of 160,000 to Russia’s armed forces, with eyes on a new offensive looming.
Not a single act to pressure Moscow has been taken by Washington. As to whether increased sanctions will be imposed if Russia does not meet Trump’s supposed deadline remains to be seen. Indeed, just as Trump was imposing trade tariffs, travel sanctions were lifted on Putin’s advisor and money man, Dmitriev to travel to Washington. On the agenda was the restoration of Russian-American relations, and to work to restore business relations.
At the US – Russia talks on April 10th in Istanbul Ukraine was not even on the agenda but “normalizing broader relations” was. Meanwhile with no sign of a ceasefire, Trump revised the terms of the agreement that would give the US dominance of Ukraine’s critical minerals and energy assets, its terms resembling a form of economic colonialism, Ukraine must repay — at 4% interest — the assistance the U.S. previously provided for free, contribute royalties and interest from all natural resources, U.S. holding majority control over the fund and board, and can freely withdraw profits from the fund; Ukraine cannot.
Trump backed up the draconian terms with threats to Ukraine if they sought to renegotiate the deal.
With no ratcheting up of pressure on Putin such coercion on Ukraine can have been for no other reason than to shift the balance of power on the battlefield, to weaken Ukraine’s position between the two superpowers. Such is the conduct of the USA it is entirely feasible Trump could in the end broker a deal with Russia without a meaningful cessation of the war in Ukraine or a sustainable peace, an option now openly floated by MAGA commentators.
Creative Commons
The dual crisis of Capital and Labour
Trump’s realignment with Russia and US divergence from Europe as it pivots to the Asia-Pacific has thrown the European powers into disarray, with the old certainties of the transatlantic alliance brought sharply into question.
The acquiescing to U.S. demands for increased defence spending is both an attempt to retain U.S. oversight in Europe and a fear of abandonment of mutual defence commitments by Trump. Europe is faced with an additional dilemma of a nominal ally in Washington who is imposing tariffs on them and undermining liberal democracy now alongside Moscow. Meanwhile key figures are openly supporting the far right in Europe.
Nevertheless, Europe has still not rallied to sustain the resistance to Russian Imperialism by providing an alternative to US aid to Ukraine. This would mean an increase in European aid from the current 44 billion euros per year to 82 billion euros, far less than the over €800 billion assigned to the ReArm Europe Plan.
Instead, of empowering Ukraine to have freedom of choice autonomously of Trump and Putin,we have seen the UK and France lead an ethereal “coalition of the willing” to organise a “reassurance force” to be deployed in the rear after an imposed deal, a force Russia has declared “completely unacceptable” and whose numbers Zelensky says will be ineffective.
Far from this being “a plan to sabotage any prospect of a peace settlement’, as Andrew Murray of Stop the War has argued, it will underpin a Trump-Putin partition plan leaving the Russian occupation intact.
The Ukrainian Question is pivotal to global politics. Should Trump and Putin succeed in undermining Ukraine’s struggle for freedom, it will not bring a sustainable peace. Russian imperialism will pause to recuperate and strengthen its forces, before resuming its real objective of asserting dominance over the entirety of Ukraine.
It will bolster reactionary movements worldwide, aiming to reconfigure the globe into regional capitalist power blocs driven purely by naked self-interest. To respond with some form of radical abstentionism in the face of the Trump’s rapprochement with Putin is to become complicit in the betrayal of Ukraine and weaken resistance to the incipient fascism in the USA.
From the standpoint of the labour movement, a de facto victory for Putin’s Russia at the behest of Trump would be disastrous, yet so far neither the European nor US labour movement has yet to project an alternative to the Trump-Putin Axis. Whatever scenario emerges this is an urgent necessity. The Ukraine Solidarity Campaign with allies has put forward a Plan for an Alternative to Russian Occupation of viable measures to oppose the imposition of an unjust peace that cements Russia’s occupation of Ukraine, raising with renewed meaning for today the old slogan of Neither Washington nor Moscow, but a free, democratic and United Ukraine.
Agreed: Neither Washington nor Moscow?