Donald Trump’s extensive support for Vladimir Putin has long been a feature of his world outlook. It has never been fully explained but likely stems from two core elements of his personality: an insatiable desire to acquire as much wealth as possible and an utter – if pronoid – self-belief in his business abilities.
This week, this support came to the fore once again when the US president offered Putin a deal for the supply of Russian diesel fuel, hoping to bring down the domestic price of fuel and the cost of living ahead of the midterms.
Blaming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy for oil price spikes – which have risen globally since the outbreak of the US-Israel war in Iran – Trump then attempted to strong-arm Ukraine and Russia into an energy ceasefire via social media. Whether Russia ever agreed to such a truce is unknown, but it reportedly broke it within hours, attacking a key facility supplying Kyiv with heating and electricity and prompting Ukraine to resume strikes on Russian oil refineries.
Zelenskyy has also accused the US of threatening to limit Ukraine’s access to its intelligence, while Starlink owner Elon Musk suggested new restrictions on the speed at which Ukrainian drones can fly while connected to its internet were ordered by the White House.
The outcome of all of this has been to hand Putin a significant advantage. While Canada and most European members of NATO will continue to back Zelenskyy, the prospects for a negotiated settlement of the war have certainly diminished.
This should be seen in the context of what has proved to be an unwinnable war for both parties. That goes right back to the very early months of the war, from the start of Putin’s “special military operation” in February 2022 and Russia’s subsequent occupation of much of north-east and eastern Ukraine.
Putin’s supposed war aim back then was to demilitarise and “denazify” the country, terminating Zelenskyy’s government and replacing it with acceptable pro-Russian rule. To be certain of success, Russia needed the immediate occupation of Kyiv.
This was not to be.
Partly down to Russian overconfidence but also to rapid Ukrainian responses backed up by intelligence support from US agencies, the vital takeover of Kyiv faltered. Indeed, by late March 2022 it was clear that the plan for complete control of Ukraine was beyond the Russian army’s capabilities, even if its forces were present across much of eastern Ukraine.
By May of that year, there were some indications that a deal might be bring the war to an early end. But opposition mounted, especially in Washington where hawks saw a welcome opportunity to damage Russia and perhaps even force an end to Putin. By early September 2022, Ukrainian forces had reclaimed some occupied territories, although close to a fifth of the country, including Crimea, remained under Russian control.
The situation over the four years since then is best described as a violent stalemate.
If Russia were able to make enough military progress to force Ukraine into a ceasefire on its terms, NATO would lose so much political and military credibility that its future would be in doubt; it would provide Ukraine with whatever support it requires to avoid this. On the other hand, if Ukraine were able to suddenly force Russian troops into a rapid retreat, Putin would escalate, likely threatening the use of weapons of mass destruction.
The past four years, then, have seen only minor changes in the balance of military power, with neither Russia nor Ukraine able to dominate the conflict. The ground war has led to huge losses among Russian soldiers for almost no territorial gain, while Ukraine suffers badly from a smaller population base.
While Ukraine did successfully use long-range drones to damage and destroy Russian oil storage, refining, and distribution facilities, Russia has in recent months also expanded its own use of drones and missiles to do widespread damage to Ukraine’s energy infrastructure ahead of the coming brutal winter, as the Kremlin no doubt seeks a political breakthrough.
The stalemate has been worsened by Trump using the first two years of his second term to build a far more accommodating relationship with Putin than that established by his predecessor, Joe Biden. Indeed, the US president sees Russia not as an adversary but as a potential business partner from which he could personally benefit.
Trump has form in this regard; he and his family have already amassed an estimated $2bn from schemes made possible through his presidential powers and connections. But this accumulation of wealth has contributed to his decline in popularity, further diminishing Republican prospects at next month’s congressional midterm elections.
It was in this context that the president made a deal with Putin, suspending sanctions on Russian diesel exports to the US until 7 April. Experts have warned that the agreement is unlikely to bring down global oil prices, and cast doubt on whether Russia’s damaged refineries can even deliver the amount promised.
Regardless, unless a change in outlook from within or close to the White House alters Trump’s view, the war now looks certain to enter its sixth year next February, with more killing and suffering to come.
Putin is set to benefit, as Russia is better positioned to pound Ukraine with drones and missiles – a situation unlikely to change unless Ukraine somehow gets hold of more anti-missile missiles. But these are in short supply globally after the US used so many against Iran; Western states will be keen to hold on to their stocks.
The real winners, however, will be the arms industries of the US, Russia, Germany, the UK, Iran, Israel, France and plenty more. For weapons manufacturers, this is close to being an ideal war; neither party can prevail and both require billions of dollars’ worth of military support, with new drones, autonomous weapons, and anti-drone missiles and much more being developed and rushed into production.
Furthermore, given Russia’s ability to evade sanctions, Western arms manufacturers may well see their products sold to both sides – truly an ideal war, provided you ignore the devastating human cost.