Trump failed to end war because he didn’t even try - Bloomberg
One can be disappointed or concerned about the outcome of Donald Trump's phone call with Putin, but not surprised. The US president failed to end the war because he did not try.
Bloomberg writes about this, Censor.NET reports.
From day one, Trump has focused on achieving a reset in relations with Russia that would benefit the United States economically. The US involvement in the war was an obstacle that had to be removed before that could happen, and it had to be done through a peaceful settlement, not by abandoning Ukraine. However, this was not decisive, the article says.
"It was a European situation, and it had to remain European. So, that's been dealt with, now what?" - Trump was quoted as saying.
First, if Congress does not force Trump to act, he can leave the long and thankless task of mediating a peaceful settlement to the Pope, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, or anyone else who wants to do it. Meanwhile, he will be able to focus on making money.
"From Moscow's point of view, things could hardly have ended better. Putin has made a new vague proposal to start direct negotiations with Ukraine and set out his demands in a memorandum. It's fairly safe to guess what it will contain, as the Kremlin has repeatedly voiced its terms of peace. Now that Trump is out of the picture, Putin has less reason to make concessions: Ukraine will have to hand over not only the occupied territories that Russia has formally annexed, but also the non-occupied ones, sever ties with NATO, and demobilize most of its armed forces," the author notes.
That's why Ukrainians have no choice but to keep fighting, the publication believes. Without the future ability to defend themselves, their country will no longer exist as a sovereign state.
"Whether Ukraine will be able to maintain at least the current level of defense, let alone launch an offensive, or suffer a catastrophic breakthrough due to a lack of weapons and ammunition, now depends on Europe," the publication writes.
Bloomberg points out that European leaders have known about the likelihood of a US withdrawal from the conflict since Trump's election. The right words were said, but the actions did not exactly match the statements.
"Ukrainian troops are undoubtedly in a bad situation, but they will continue to fight because they have to. And the UK, France, Germany, and most of the countries of Northern and Eastern Europe recognize that the defense of Ukraine is to a large extent their own defense," the author notes.
These countries have the financial means, but they lack the industrial capacity to fill the void left by a U.S. withdrawal, as well as the collective sense of urgency to do whatever it takes to fix it.
Europe should make efforts, but is not obliged to provide everything. In the year before Russia's full-scale invasion, Ukraine produced about $750 million worth of military equipment, the newspaper writes. This year, it has the potential, if not the means, to produce about $35 billion worth of military equipment, including the world's best drone industry. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stated that 40% of the weapons used at the front are currently produced in his country, and this share continues to grow.
European governments and arms manufacturers can focus on filling critical gaps in the production of aircraft, missiles, air defense systems, etc. that Ukraine cannot produce on its own.
Trump had the resources to increase financial and military pressure on Putin until he sat down for real peace talks; he just chose not to use them. Now it's Europe's turn, the author concludes.
