Given the enormity of the task at hand, Trump might be unable to execute his reported plan for organizing a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine unless he announces the US’ direct involvement in this scheme, which he’s not predicted to do.
It was recently assessed that “The Clock Is Ticking For Russia To Achieve Its Maximum Goals In The Ukrainian Conflict” after the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump plans to organize a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine without the US’ participation in order to freeze the conflict. This is obviously a lot easier said than done. Here’s what can offset this scenario by either delaying it long enough for Russia to end the conflict on its own terms or capsizing Trump’s plan completely:
1. The Europeans Fear a Direct Kinetic Escalation with Russia
France’s tough talk earlier this year about conventionally intervening in the conflict and Poland subsequently refusing to rule out its participation as well mask the Europeans’ fear of a direct kinetic escalation with Russia. Trump will have to masterfully leverage the US’ influence over them and NATO as a whole in order to coerce his country’s European partners into putting their security on the line by going through with this risky plan. It could always backfire, after all, and inadvertently spark World War III.
2. Public Opinion in the Polish Lynchpin Is Strongly Against This
It’s difficult to imagine a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine without Poland’s leading participation, but public opinion is strongly against this after a reputable survey over the summer showed that 69% of Poles are opposed to dispatching troops to that neighboring country in any capacity. As mutual Polish-Ukrainian mistrust worsens as explained here, here, and here, it’ll become a very tough sell, plus Poles fear that they’ll once again be exploited by the West while getting nothing at all in return.
3. Trump’s Prior Rhetoric About Article 5 Doesn’t Inspire Confidence
Another hurdle that’ll have to be overcome is regaining confidence in Trump due to his prior rhetoric about Article 5 after he declared in February that the US won’t protect those NATO members who haven’t spent at least 2% of their GDP on defense. He even threatened that “I would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want.” Even though most now meet that target, they might still fear that he’ll attach more strings to Article 5, which they’ll rely on for defense if they participate in this mission.
4. It’s Unclear Exactly What Trump Would Do If Russia Hit NATO Troops
Trump will also have to convince NATO members that his response to Russia hitting their troops will balance the line between fulfilling Article 5’s perceived commitments while avoiding an escalation that could spiral into World War III. They also need to be sure that he’ll go through with it and not back down. Moreover, this would have to be clearly communicated to Russia too, who he’ll have to deter. There’s a lot that can go wrong anywhere along this sequence of events so its success can’t be taken for granted.
5. NATO Is Unprepared for a Prolonged Non-Nuclear Hot War with Russia
Even in the extremely unlikely scenario that neither Russia nor the US resorts to nukes in the event of direct kinetic exchanges between them, then NATO would be unprepared for waging a prolonged non-nuclear hot war with Russia. It’s losing the “race of logistics” by far, no progress was made during the last NATO Summit on the “military Schengen” for facilitating such movements eastward, and the bloc only has 5% of the air defenses needed to protect itself. NATO might therefore ultimately lose to Russia.
6. External Mediation Could Lead to a Scaled-Back Peacekeeping Mission
Hungary and India have excellent ties with Russia and the US so it’s possible that they could independently or jointly work to broker a scaled-back peacekeeping mission instead. This could result in Western troops deploying west of the Dnieper, Ukraine demilitarizing everything that it still controls in the east of heavy weapons, and Russia agreeing to freeze the Line of Contact. Such a scenario was broadly discussed here in mid-March. It’s unlikely, admittedly imperfect, but nonetheless still possible.
7. Cautious Europeans Might Wager That It’s Better to Just Cut Their Losses
All the same, the preceding six points might lead to the cautious Europeans waging that it’s better to just cut their losses and let everything play out however it will without risking the consequences that their participation in any Ukrainian peacekeeping mission could entail. It would be an unprecedented defeat for the West if it possibly lets Russia achieve a maximum victory, but growing fatigue as well as the fear of inadvertently sparking and losing World War III could result in this world-changing outcome.
8. A Cuban-Like Brinksmanship Crisis Could Break Out Before Trump’s Reinauguration
Another possibility is that anti-Russian hawks in the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) and/or Zelensky provoke a major escalation with Russia before Trump’s reinauguration out of desperation to prevent him from “selling out Ukraine” as they might see it. If that happens, then Trump would be powerless to influence the course of events. He’d have no choice but to inherit whatever the outcome would be, whether it’s World War III or a possibly lopsided peace deal.
9. There’s a Chance That Russia Achieves Maximum Victory Before Then Too
This scenario is unlikely due to the high probability that the aforesaid point would materialize, specifically in the form of a conventional NATO intervention to at least race Russia to the Dnieper, in the event that the front lines collapse before mid-January and Russia is about to achieve maximum victory. Even so, there’s always the chance that it’s averted for whatever reason, in which case there’d be no need for the NATO peacekeeping mission that Trump reportedly envisages.
10. The West Asian Wars Worsen & Become Trump’s Immediate Priority
And finally, nobody knows whether or not the West Asian wars might worsen and thus become Trump’s immediate priority upon resuming office, with there being compelling arguments to predict that both Israel and Iran might be plotting precisely this scenario in advance of their respective interests. Briefly, Israel might want to bait the US into helping it destroy Iran once and for all, while Iran might want to inflict a devastating blow to US regional interests as revenge for Trump’s assassination of Soleimani.
*
Given the enormity of the task at hand, Trump might be unable to execute his reported plan for organizing a Western/NATO peacekeeping mission in Ukraine unless he announces the US’ direct involvement in this scheme, which he’s not predicted to do. If he doesn’t get what he wants, then he might resort to threatening Russia and NATO alike, but such psychological warfare might have no effect. In that case, he might just give up and move on, blaming Biden for the West’s unprecedented defeat.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books!
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from the author
