Authored by Alastair Crooke,
Trump’s rhetoric about Russia having lost 1 million men in the Ukraine conflict is not just nonsense (the real number not even reaching 100,000), but his resort to it underlines that the usual meme of Trump being just woefully misinformed is looking less and less plausible.
After touting the 1 million Russian deaths, Trump then suggests that Putin is destroying Russia by not making a deal. Adding (seemingly as an aside), that Putin may have already made up his mind ‘not to make a deal’.
Instead, in a curiously disinterested way, Trump remarks that negotiations would depend entirely on whether Putin is interested or not. He further claims that Russia’s economy is in ruins, and most notably says that he would consider sanctioning or tariffing Russia, if Putin does not make a deal. In a subsequent Truth Social post, Trump writes, “I’m going to do Russia, whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR”.
This – plainly said – is a narrative of an entirely different order: No longer is it his Envoy Kellogg or another team member saying it; it is Trump’s own words as President. Trump answers a journalist’s question ‘Would [he] sanction Russia’ should Putin not come to the negotiating table? To which he responds, “that sounds likely”.
What, we might ask, is Trump’s strategy? It seems more as though it is Trump that is preparing for a ‘no deal’. He must be aware that Putin repeatedly has made plain that he is both interested and open to talks with Trump. There is no doubt about that.
Yet Trump subsequently contradicts the ‘loser discourse’ in yet another apparent after-thought: “I mean … it’s a big machine so, eventually things will happen …”.
Here he appears to be saying that the Russian ‘big machine’ ultimately will win. Russia will be a winner – and not a loser.
Maybe Trump is thinking simply to let the dynamics of the military ‘trial of strength’ play out. (If that is his thinking, he cannot utter such sentiment out loud – explicitly – as the Euro-élites would sink even further into a pathological tailspin).
Alternatively, were Trump to be seriously seeking productive negotiations with Putin, it is certainly not a good way to start by being deeply disrespectful towards the Russian people – depicting them and President Putin as ‘losers’ who desperately need a deal; whereas the reality was that it was Trump who earlier had touted getting a deal within 24 hours. His disrespect will rankle – not just with Putin – but for most Russians.
The ‘loser narrative’ simply will stiffen Russian opposition to a Ukraine compromise.
The backdrop is that Russia in any case collectively eschews the idea of any compromise that “boils down to freezing the conflict along the line of engagement: that will give time to rearm the remnants of the Ukrainian army, and then start a new round of hostilities. So, that we have to fight again, but this time from less advantageous political positions”, as Professor Sergei Karaganov has noted.
Moreover, “the Trump administration has no reason to negotiate with us on the terms we [Russia] have set. The war is economically beneficial to the U.S. … and [possibly] also to removing Russia as the powerful strategic support of America’s main competitor ? China”.
Professor Dmitri Trenin similarly predicts that,
“Trump’s bid to secure a ceasefire along Ukraine’s battle lines will fail. The American plan ignores Russia’s security concerns and disregards the root causes of the conflict. Meanwhile, Moscow’s conditions will remain unacceptable to Washington, as they would effectively mean Kiev’s capitulation and the West’s strategic defeat. In response Trump will impose additional sanctions on Moscow. Despite strong anti-Russian rhetoric, U.S. aid to Ukraine will decrease, shifting much of the burden onto Western European nations”.
So why cast Russia as contemptible ‘losers’, unless this forms Trump’s strategy for walking away from the Ukraine issue? If a clear-cut U.S. ‘victory narrative’ seems beyond reach, then why not invert the narrative?‘Mission accomplished’ being obstructed solely by Russia’s ‘loser streak’.
This inevitably leads to the question of what is the meaning – exactly – of the return of America’s “most famous criminal defendant to the White House”, and his promise of a “revolution of common sense”?
“There is no doubt that it is revolutionary”, Matt Taibbi argues:
“Trump galvanized [income mal-distribution] resentment, creating a political Sherman’s march that left institutional America smouldering. The corporate press is dead. The Democratic Party is in schism. Academia is about to swallow a giant bottle of bitter pills, and after the executive orders signed Monday: a lot of DEI instructors will have to learn to code” [i.e., will be unemployed].
Yes, Taibbi observes,
“it makes me nervous to see a murderer’s row of censorious CEOs (particularly Bezos, Pinchai, and the repulsive Cook) sitting in front of Trump, together with other Wall Street luminaries … nonetheless, if the deal was support for Trump in exchange for platforms going back to being merely self-interested profit-gobblers, I’ll take it over the previous cabal. The Wall Street Journal was probably closest to capturing the essence of that idea of the event with yesterday’s header, “The New Oligarchy is a Vast Improvement on the Old””.
Yet to many Russians, however, the impression left by Trump’s ‘loser’ discourse is that ‘nothing changes’ – the idea of inflicting ‘strategic defeats’ on Russia has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy for so long a time that it transcends party lines and is implemented regardless of which administration occupies the White House.
And today, a new impetus is apparent – as Nikolai Patrushev warns, Moscow expects Washington artificially to foment friction between Russia and China.
Steve Bannon however, in his usual florid language, goes some way to explain the conundrum of a revolutionary Trump and his disappointing ‘loser discourse’.
Bannon warns that Ukraine risks becoming ‘Trump’s Vietnam’, should Trump fail to make a ‘clean break’, and allow himself to be sucked deeper into the Ukraine war.
“That’s what happened to Richard Nixon. He ended up owning the war and it went down as his war – not Lyndon Johnson’s”, Bannon noted.
Bannon “advocates ending America’s all-important military aid to Kyiv, but fears his old boss is going to fall into a trap being set by an unlikely alliance of the U.S. defence industry, the Europeans and even some of Bannon’s own friends, whom he argues are now misguided”.
Bannon’s underpinning premise was made clear during his Zoom call with Alex Krainer. He confirmed that Trump and his team will go on the offensive from day one in office: “The days of thunder begin on Monday”. Bannon wasn’t talking about Trump going on the offensive against the Chinese, Iranians or the Russians, however. Trump and his team are preparing to take on the “they””.
“They”, in Bannon’s words, “are the people who control the world’s most powerful empire and, elections or no elections, democracy or no democracy, they will not voluntarily relinquish their privileges and the control: there will be a fight”.
Yes, the ‘real war’ is the domestic one — not that against Russia, China or Iran, which could become diversions from the main battle.
For comparative purposes, were Trump’s aim truly to agree a negotiated Ukraine ‘compromise’, we need to contrast his rhetorical blatant ‘loser’ jibe with that of John F. Kennedy’s attempt, 59 years ago, to break the cycle of mutual antipathy that had frozen relations between East and West since 1945. Stung by the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Kennedy wanted to break an ossified paradigm. Kennedy – like Trump – sought to ‘End Wars’; to be recorded in history as a ‘peace-maker’.
In a speech at the American University in Washington on 10 June, 1963, JFK praised the Russians. He spoke of their achievements in science, the arts and industry; he saluted their sacrifices in the Second World War where they lost 25 million people, one-third of their territory and two-thirds of their economy.
It was no exercise in empty rhetoric.
Kennedy proposed the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty – the first of the arms-control agreements of the 1960s and 1970s.
Well, there may be inklings of a Bannon-inspired tentative ‘clean break’ beginning – as Larry Johnson notes:
“The Pentagon reportedly has fired or suspended all personnel directly responsible for managing military assistance to Ukraine. They will all face an investigation into the use of U.S. budget money.
“Laura Cooper, the Pentagon’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, has already resigned, marking the beginning of what some see as a strategic pivot. Cooper was a key figure in overseeing $126 billion in military aid to Ukraine. Her departure, coupled with what appears to be a housecleaning of Pentagon staff tied to Kiev’s war effort, casts doubt on whether Ukraine will continue to enjoy the open spigot of U.S. weapons and funding it received under Biden.
“The restructuring also casts a shadow over the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which under Lloyd Austin had expanded into a 50-nation coalition supporting Kiev”.
The U.S. has reportedly withdrawn all applications to contractors for logistics through Rzeszow, Constanta and Varna. At NATO bases in Europe, all shipments to Ukraine have been suspended and closed. This falls under Trump’s Executive Order halting global U.S. assistance for 90 days – pending an audit and cost-benefit analysis.
Meanwhile, Moscow and China are duly preparing against the prospect of diplomatic re-engagement with the now President Trump. Xi and Putin held a 95 minute video call a few hours after Trump’s impromptu news conference in the Oval Office – Xi gave Putin the details of his conversation with Trump (which was not timed to coincide with Trump’s inauguration, but rather had been scheduled in December).
Both leaders appear to be sending a common message to Trump — i.e., the alliance between China and Russia is not ephemeral. They are united in common cause to work jointly to assert their respective national interests. They are willing to talk to Trump and engage in serious negotiations. Yet, they refuse to be bullied or threatened.
Nikolai Patrushev, Adviser to Putin and member of Russia’s Security Council, gave the Russian context to this video call between the two leaders:
“For the Biden administration, Ukraine was an unconditional priority. It is clear, [Patrushev says], that the relationship between Trump and Biden is antagonistic. Therefore, Ukraine will not be among Trump’s priorities. He cares more about China”.
Pointedly, Patrushev warned:
“I think Washington’s disagreements with Beijing will worsen, and the Americans will inflate them, including artificially. For us, China has been and remains the most important partner with whom we are connected by relations of privileged strategic cooperation”.
“As for the Russian line in relation to Ukraine, it remains unchanged. It is important for us that the tasks of the Special Operation are solved. They are known and have not changed. I believe that negotiations on Ukraine should be conducted between Russia and the United States without the participation of other Western countries”.
“I want to emphasize once again that the Ukrainian people remain close to us: brotherly and bound by centuries-old ties with Russia, no matter how much Kiev propagandists obsess with ‘Ukrainianness’ claim to the contrary. We care about what is happening in Ukraine. It is especially disturbing [therefore] that violent coercion to neo-Nazi ideology and ardent Russophobia destroy the once prosperous cities of Ukraine, including Kharkiv, Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnipropetrovsk”.
“It is possible that in the coming year Ukraine will cease to exist altogether”.
