by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
A large-scale NATO military exercise earlier this year. Credit...Davide Monteleone for The New York Times
Viewed through the Cold War prism, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's decision at its recent summit meeting at the Hague to boost the defence spending by member countries to 5 percent of national income may appear to a naive onlooker as a decisive move to confront Russia at a future date. But appearances can be deceptive, this being at the urging of US President Donald Trump.
Russia has taken the NATO decision in its stride reminding us of the dog that didn't bark in the Sherlock Holmes novel. For, there is no shred of evidence that Trump harbours any desire to 'erase' Russia. On the contrary, Trump seeks good relations with Russia, although mindful of the obstacles on his way due to the Russophobia among American elites.
Interestingly, last Tuesday, New York Times published a guest essay penned by former president Joe Biden's national security advisor Jake Sullivan titled Trump Is Playing a Cynical Game With Ukraine whose unspoken theme is that Trump could be surreptitiously serving Putin's interests in the Ukraine war!
Sullivan wrote: "For months, President Trump has played a cynical game. In front of the press, he threatens to impose new sanctions on the Russian economy. In private, he never follows through... All of this suggests that Mr. Trump is not willing to pressure Russia to end this war. Instead, he is folding and abandoning Ukraine."
In sheer exasperation, he concludes his essay accusing Trump of "implicitly surrendering to Mr. Putin." It is a mellowed version of the discredited Russia collusion hypothesis that the deep state and neocons used to paralyse Trump's first presidency.
However, Trump has returned to the Oval Office not only with an unprecedented mandate but also with a far better grasp of how Washington works. This shows in his thoughtful choice of Marco Rubio as secretary of state, despite the former senator's ideological pedigree as an impeccable 'neocon globalist.' Trump has uses for Rubio's intellect, bipartisan credibility and sheer prudence as someone harbouring presidential ambitions. Equally, Trump chose a trusted longtime friend Steve Witkoff to navigate his foreign policy agenda just the way he wants, rejecting 'forever wars' and putting primacy on diplomacy, including in West Asia.
One can be cautiously optimistic that the Israel-Iran ceasefire will hold despite doomsday predictions. The protagonists are in a chastened mood no matter their public rhetoric. Israel has taken a battering from Iran that it never expected and its economy is at a point of collapse. Iran also took heavy losses and its objective to get the sanctions removed now seems a bridge too far, while on the other hand, making a bomb involves huge risks with no commensurate benefits and will grate against the advice of Russia and China, apart from alienating Arab neighbours.
As for Trump, he has learnt that it is impossible to "obliterate" a country's mastery over nuclear technology. Interestingly, last night in Tehran, Iran's Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made his first public appearance since the Israeli attack began, leading the Ashura night mourning ceremony.
There is no question that Trump aspires to go down in history as a peacemaking president who understands that the US' unipolar moment has gone forever. In the phone conversation with Putin on July 3, the latter might not have said 'Nyet' in as many words but turned down Trump's suggestion for a ceasefire as quid pro quo for the suspension of critical US weapon deliveries to Ukraine, and went on to stress that the Russian military operations will continue until the Kremlin's political and geopolitical objectives have been fully realised.
Tass news agency highlighted Trump's reaction that he is "very unhappy" because Putin "wants to go all the way." "[That's] not good," Trump emphasised. Without doubt, Trump and Putin maintain good personal relations, as evidenced by their calls on the eve of symbolic dates, including those important for the Americans such as the July 4 Independence Day.
Nonetheless, a leading Moscow pundit Dmitry Suslov told Vedomosti newspaper, "Trump may have threatened Putin: if Russia does not agree to a ceasefire now, then he [Trump] may move forward with the adoption by Congress of Senator Lindsey Graham's bill on new ["bone breaking"] sanctions against Russia." Suslov admitted that following the phone conversation, the chances of Senator Graham's bill being adopted may have increased "many times over."
But, so what? In all probability, Russia will show that its bones are not so brittle. The bottomline, Suslov said, is that a carrot and stick approach by the White House "is unlikely to work: Russia's position remains principled, and most likely, regardless of the actions of the United States, it is not ready to agree to a ceasefire without fulfilling its demands now."
To be sure, we are at a defining point in current history where Putin holds Trump in high esteem but is not ready to exchange tactical decisions to the detriment of strategic ones that impact Russia's core interests. And from Trump's side too, howsoever unpalatable an outright Russian victory in Ukraine would be for NATO, he remains committed to a cooperative relationship with Russia, which is important for his endeavours as a peacemaking president.
This, by no means, is a cold war era standoff. What we see is more like a tango live-streaming platform where two partners are paired in an inextricably-related and active manner but occasionally with negative connotations. There is an underlying sense of passion about it in its playful intimacy or more dramatic style as dancing the tango will surely bring the two partners closer.
Now, what about NATO boosting its finances? The New York Times has an easy explanation: To be sure, European countries have committed to spending nearly double on military investments over the next decade. The money involved is really big - $16 Trillion. In an ideal setting, such big money ought to "fuel a flurry of high-end innovation in Europe."
But, nothing of that sort is expected. Times writes, "That is because of what one might call the F-35 problem. Europe lacks quality alternatives to some of the most needed and desired defence equipment that American companies produce...
"Patriot missile-defence systems are also imported from America, as are rocket launchers, sophisticated drones, long-range artillery guided by satellite, integrated command and control systems, electronic and cyber warfare capabilities - along with most of the software required to run them. And because many European nations have already invested in American weapons, they want new purchases to remain compatible."
Got it? There is massive business being generated by NATO allies for American vendors going forward. As it is, NATO accounts for 34 percent of all US arms exports globally. No wonder, Trump came away from the Hague saying he enjoyed himself at the NATO event. The NATO summit didn't utter a word about Russia. Because, it was, in reality, about fuelling Trump's MAGA movement.
Jriginal article: www.indianpunchline.com