Trump's Legacy: Ukraine's Struggle, NATO's Alarm

8 min read

Today, we’re going to explore the unfolding crisis gripping Eastern Europe. In a turbulent era defined by shifting alliances and geopolitical brinkmanship, we unravel the alarming narrative of Ukraine's tenuous support under Trump’s potential return, and NATO's anxieties as they prepare for an unquestionable future Russian invasion. This isn't just a geopolitical chess game; we’re talking about the high-stakes dynamics threatening to reshape the landscape of global security.

Welcome to That's Life, I Swear. This podcast is about life's happenings in this world that conjure up such words as intriguing, frightening, life-changing, inspiring, and more. I'm Rick Barron your host. 

That said, here's the rest of this story  

At this very moment, Europe and NATO are now contemplating what was once thought unthinkable: the Russian Invasion.

As U.S. support for Ukraine diminishes and the specter of a resurgent Donald Trump looms, European nations and NATO begin dealing with the sobering possibility of confronting Russia alone within the next decade or sooner.

President Vladimir V. Putin's passionate expression of grief in 2005 about the demise of the Soviet empire as the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century" once seemed like mere rhetoric. However, subsequent events, including:

·       Russia's occupations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008 

·       Support for Ukrainian separatists 

·       The annexation of Crimea in 2014 

·       The full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, have shattered any illusions of complacency. 

With the resurgence of former President Donald J. Trump, whose past threats to withdraw from NATO and recent reluctance to aid alliance allies has raised alarms. Knowing this is possible gives European nations reason to confront the unsettling prospect of a potential Russian invasion within the next decade. If the Trump scenario unfolds, they now think harder of fighting Russian forces without U.S. backing.

President Putin. Courtesy of: The Daily Beast

Some officials and experts speculate that a Russian assault could occur within five years at the earliest following the conflict's conclusion in Ukraine. As Putin waits it out, it gives Russia ample time to rebuild and bolster its military capabilities.

The notion of a Russian invasion has long haunted the states that border Russia or its immediate vicinity. For Maj. Gen. Veiko-Vello Palm, commander of the Estonian Army's primary land combat division, the threat of invasion has been an enduring concern, a concern that’s now morphing in a high probability. He reflected on Estonia's awakening to this threat in 1991, when the country declared independence from the crumbling Soviet Union.

However, despite mounting apprehension, Moscow dismisses allegations of planning to attack NATO, attributing such claims to Western disinformation aimed at inciting discontent against Russia. Sergei Naryshkin, head of Russia's foreign intelligence service, brushed off these concerns in a recent interview with the state-owned news agency RIA Novosti, denouncing them as part of a Western propaganda campaign.

In recent months, Europe's apprehension has been exacerbated by Mr. Putin's aggressive military buildup and substantial investments in Russia's armed forces and defense industry. Concurrently, some Republicans in Congress advocate for limiting American aid to Ukraine, adding to the unease.

President Zelensky of Ukraine issued a stark warning at the World Economic Forum, asserting that the scope of potential Russian aggression extends far beyond Ukraine, with ominous indications of future assaults becoming increasingly apparent.

While NATO asserts its readiness to defend the borders of all 31 member states, collective national defense spending has surged by an estimated $190 billion since 2014, when Russia initiated its invasion of Ukraine. However, analysts caution that rebuilding the military infrastructure across Europe, which had been hollowed out in the decades following the Cold War, remains an ongoing process that could span several years.

The "peace dividend" resulting from the reallocation of funds away from military budgets toward social programs like healthcare and education, coupled with a decline in demand for defense equipment, led to a contraction of Europe's defense industry.

In 2006, amid concerns about military preparedness, top defense officials from NATO countries agreed to allocate at least 2 percent of their annual domestic output to military spending. However, compliance with this target remained voluntary, and by 2014, only three of the 28 member nations met the benchmark. Although the number of countries meeting the 2 percent threshold has increased since then, reaching 11 last year, significant disparities persist.

NATO's resolve to assess its readiness is underscored by a large-scale military exercise involving 90,000 troops, touted as the alliance's most extensive drill since the Cold War's conclusion. The exercise, which simulates NATO's response to a hypothetical Russian invasion, has heightened tensions in border states, particularly in the Baltics and Nordics.

Highlighting NATO's strategic preparations against its top adversaries, Adm. Rob Bauer of the Netherland’s, the chairman of NATO’s Military Committee, emphasized, "That's why we are gearing up for a potential conflict with Russia," alongside NATO's ongoing vigilance against terrorism.

Nicknamed the Steadfast Defender 2024, the NATO exercise catalyzes allies' heightened apprehension, as noted by Christopher Skaluba, Director of the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council in Washington. Skaluba contends that Russia's tenacity during Ukraine's Western-equipped counteroffensive last summer signaled Putin's enduring commitment, potentially allowing for military reconstitution within three to five years. "Just because they faced setbacks in Ukraine doesn't mean they're sidelined for a decade," Skaluba cautioned.

The looming possibility of a Trump presidency reemerging has compelled Europeans to confront the likelihood of reduced American support for Ukraine and a potential shift in U.S. leadership within NATO as early as next year, Skaluba observed.

These factors intensify broader apprehensions about Russia's intentions, fueling a visible sense of unease. "It's a unique convergence of circumstances that amplifies longstanding fears of Russian aggression against NATO," Skaluba remarked, noting a recent escalation in concerns over the past several weeks.

In a January 21 interview, Norway's top military commander, Gen. Eirik Kristoffersen, emphasized the urgent need to bolster defenses against an unpredictable Russia, stressing, "We are short on time." He urged immediate investments in secure defense, suggesting a window of opportunity lasting one to three years.

NATO soldiers in training. Courtesy of: Financial Times

Similarly, on the same day, President Sauli Niinistö of Finland addressed concerns arising from reports about a Steadfast Defender scenario testing NATO's response to a potential Russian invasion of Finland. President Niinistö cautioned against overreaction, seeking to allay fears, emphasizing that historical war games have not manifested in reality.

Echoing this sentiment, Sweden's top military commander, Gen. Micael Byden, and Minister for Civil Defense, Carl-Oskar Bohlin, issued stark warnings about Sweden's necessity to prepare for conflict. Mr. Bohlin's assertion that "there could be war in Sweden" at a security conference drew sharp criticism from opposition parties and pundits, who labeled the remarks as fearmongering.

Despite the controversy, Sweden and Finland are moving closer to NATO, abandoning years of military nonalignment due to concerns over Russian aggression. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson of Sweden acknowledged the increased risk of war, emphasizing that Russia remains a significant concern while there's no immediate threat.

Estonia, mindful of Russia's territorial ambitions evidenced by its actions in Ukraine, recognizes the looming threat. Col. Mati Tikerpuu, commander of Estonia's 2nd Infantry Brigade, Estonia is well aware of Russia's aspirations to reclaim its former empire. For many Estonians, it's not a matter of if, but when Russia will attempt an invasion.

In recent discussions across various media platforms, the focus of the upcoming 2024 presidential election appears to revolve around contrasting narratives: one characterized by concerns about cognitive decline, while the other embodies notions of extreme personality traits. However, beneath this surface lies a more profound consideration—the course of the Western world.

President Biden emphasizes the importance of countering Vladimir Putin's aggressive actions in Ukraine for the overall security of Europe. Conversely, Donald Trump's stance on Ukraine appears largely indifferent. Biden asserts the pivotal role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in upholding both American and European security, whereas Trump views it more skeptically, perceiving it as a form of assistance for economically prosperous nations that should shoulder their own defense burdens.

During the previous autumn, Republican members of Congress insisted on attaching conditions to ongoing aid for Ukraine, specifically seeking policy changes related to immigration at the southern border. The Senate crafted a bill reflecting these demands after extensive negotiations spanning four months. However, Trump swiftly rejected the proposal, prioritizing political posturing over substantive resolutions. Trump felt the bill's passage would make Biden look good, not America, but Biden. This clown is not in the White House currently but he’s appearing to still be calling the shots within the GOP. 

Trump’s mindset is beyond juvenile. Instead of playing a game of global chess, he’s wanting to play Tiddlywinks. 

Let's address the stark ramifications of failing to extend assistance to Kyiv. Ukrainian military forces are facing critical shortages of essential supplies, leaving them severely disadvantaged. Across the front lines, Russian troops are intensifying their attacks, significantly outpacing Ukrainian capabilities with artillery fire rates five to ten times higher. With ammunition scarcities, Ukrainian soldiers are instructed to conserve firepower, prioritizing larger Russian advances while smaller enemy groups gain ground. Furthermore, dwindling air-defense systems leave urban civilians at risk to Russian aerial threats, including drones and missiles. The gradual erosion of Ukrainian defenses in key cities like Avdiivka and Kupyansk is evident.

NATO troops training for poison gas. Courtesy of: Dept. of Defense, USA

Michael Kofman, an expert on Russia at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, warns that without additional American assistance, Ukrainian resilience may only last until a portion of 2024, beyond which their capacity to resist will diminish.

In a recent article for the Journal, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz underscored the profound implications of a Russian triumph in Ukraine, stressing its potential to drastically alter the European landscape and deal a significant blow to the liberal world order. He highlighted Europe's substantial financial and military support for Ukraine's defense efforts, while also emphasizing the imperative for unwavering commitment to Ukraine's cause from both sides of the Atlantic.

While Europe may have the capacity to increase its efforts, it cannot single-handedly bridge the military void that would result from the suspension of American aid. Since the conclusion of the Cold War, European nations have significantly downsized their armed forces and dismantled much of their defense-industrial infrastructure. Regrettably, European leaders have acknowledged their inability to meet the ambitious target of producing one million 155mm artillery shells for Ukraine by March. Despite the United States allowing its own military production capabilities to decline, it remains unparalleled as the primary source of weaponry.

Recent remarks by Mr. Trump have sent shockwaves across Europe, particularly his comments regarding NATO countries failing to meet the 2% of GDP defense spending target. Trump’s assertion that he wouldn't defend those countries against Russian aggression and would instead encourage them to act freely has raised serious concerns. Jens Stoltenberg, NATO's secretary-general, responded with a resolute yet measured statement, emphasizing that any suggestion of allies not defending each other undermines collective security, endangering both American and European soldiers. He expressed confidence that the United States would continue to be a steadfast and committed NATO ally regardless of the election outcome.

NATO member tanks in training. Courtesy of: Forbes

Other European leaders express less certainty. Norbert Röttgen, a prominent advocate for defense in Germany's Parliament, urged everyone to view the video of Mr. Trump's statement, suggesting that "Europe may soon find itself compelled to protect its own interests." This observation implies the stark reality that Europe currently lacks the capability to do so independently, and achieving self-sufficiency would necessitate considerable time and significant cuts to the Continent's social programs. A sudden shift in American policy would precipitate crises throughout Europe.

While one might assume that after four years in office, Mr. Trump is acquainted with Article 5 of NATO's founding treaty, which stipulates that an attack on one member is an attack on all, his apparent indifference suggests otherwise. To him, the treaty holds little weight beyond its text, and he appears willing to defend NATO members only if he deems it beneficial to American interests. Once again, this clown thinks he’s the landlord of one of his hotels.

In contrast, for Mr. Biden, NATO represents a solemn commitment grounded in mutual interests and shared principles. However, for Mr. Trump, it's viewed through a transactional lens, with European defense seen as peripheral to American interests. Whether "America First" translates to "America Alone" will become clearer if he secures a second term. This underscores why the choice facing Americans in November extends beyond mere personal preferences. 

What can we learn from this story? What's the takeaway?

Just one year ago, the notion of Republicans forsaking Ukraine at Trump's command would have seemed unimaginable. Yet, fast forward another year, and the unsettling reality looms: a re-elected President Trump could very well command them to yield to Putin's demands or retract support from our European allies. The landscape of international relations may be on the brink of a seismic shift. 

Consider yourself warned. 

Well, there you go, my friends; that's life, I swear

For further information regarding the material covered in this episode, I invite you to visit my website, which you can find on Apple Podcasts, for show notes calling out key pieces of content mentioned and the episode transcript.

As always, I thank you for the privilege of you listening and your interest. 

Be sure to subscribe here or wherever you get your podcast so you don't miss an episode. See you soon.