Eamon Dyas

Comments on a BBC article by Alan Little entitled: 

“Trump has blown up the world order – and left Europe’s leaders scrabbling”
“The [post 1945] generation grew up in a world that looked, sounded and behaved more like the United States than ever before. And it became the western world’s cultural, economic and military hegemon.

Yet the fundamental assumptions on which the United States has based its geostrategic ambitions now look set to change.”

(Alan Little BBC 26 March 2025)

I think this is a premature conclusion. The actual actions by the U.S. in Ukraine is what matters rather than the statements before the press or in very conveniently and “mistakenly” revealed text messages. We’re approaching make or break for the real Trump position. 

In my opinion we’ve already had two occasions  of whether that position has substance and on both occasions the outcome hadn’t been promising. 

We’ve had the highly publicised stoppage of US arms supplies and withdrawal of intelligence support but neither of which lasted even for forty-eight hours and made very little impact on the battlefield 

It was argued that this was because it resulted in Kiev agreeing to a cessation of attacks on energy infrastructure. This may of course have been the case but that leads to the second occasion when Trump’s sincerity has been tested. While Russia kept to the agreement Kiev continued with its attacks on energy infrastructure and even farcically accused Russia of doing that to itself. Yet I’ve seen no condemnation of Kiev by Trump. 

The fact that Russia kept to that agreement means that we don’t yet know what Trump’s reaction would be if Russia responded to Kiev’s cynical behaviour by itself resuming attacks on Ukraine’s energy structure. But would it be a similarly silent one? 

We now have the Black Sea agreement which will at some point be breached by Kiev through one means or another but will undoubtedly try to pin the blame on Russia. When this happens if Trump doesn’t actually stop supporting Ukraine then what will all his talk have amounted to? 

I think the jury is out on this. But I remain open to the possibility that he will use such an incident to provide limited security cover for the “ceasefire protection force” mustered by Starmer’s coalition of the willing. That this may provide limited military value on the actual battlefield is not why it would be done. It would be done for the same reason that Starmer and Macron’s idea emerged – to sustain Kiev’s morale and keep it fighting. 

The coalition of the willing can’t happen.

Its purpose is to keep the Ukrainians fighting.

John Minahane  

The “coalition of the willing” can’t happen because it’s supposed to be a force to guarantee the peace, and the Russians cannot make a peace which such a force is to guarantee. That’s basic, and Lavrov has said it more than once. The invasion was principally to stop Ukraine becoming a NATO member. If a peace is made which includes the eastern border of Ukraine being patrolled by “willing” NATO members, that means the Russians have abandoned their principal military objective.

So the “coalition of the willing” is only a provocation. As such, of course, it is meant to keep up the Ukrainian government’s morale and keep it fighting, as Eamon says. I don’t really see how it can be used by Trump. What’s clear is that he wants a settlement which the USA can profit by. Any kind of settlement which can be functional medium term (for the next ten years or so) will do him, provided the US cuts a profit. His threat to the Ukrainians will be that if he can’t profit, he will cut his losses. —- But will Russia allow the deal?