Trump and Ukraine

Donald Trump is fickle on so many things (Ukraine started the war; no, no, Russia started it). But he does seem to be consistent on doing what he thinks is best for America. His policies may or may not achieve his intent, I am only referring to the underlying theme.

 

Why should America pay for others is a consistent theme of Trump’s, even from his last stint. Each time he harps on that, it is Europe that is maximally impacted. After all, the EU had happily outsourced its military security to the US. Now if the US either doesn’t want to be the protector and/or demands the EU pay more for security, it is Europe that is impacted either way.

 

Unsurprisingly, the old guard in NATO, both American and European, hates this. You can make out they are all old because they will refer to World War II, the Normandy landing, and the Cold War. It still doesn’t strike them that all those wars, cold or hot, ended decades back… They are living in the past.

 

Trump’s stance on Ukraine is a clear example of that difference in world views. Trump is not keen to keep spending American money to defend some other country. Ukraine was stunned that the US and Russia started discussions to end the war, without Ukraine at the table. This may be new for a white country, but for centuries, this is how imperialists made decisions for Asia and Africa, i.e., without the impacted countries having any say. (It is a bit hard to call Trump a racist when he does stuff like this to whites).

 

It then turned out keeping Ukraine out was a scare tactic. Trump told Ukraine they’d have a say in the negotiations with Russia was if Ukraine gave 50% of revenue from all its mineral wealth to the US. This includes regular minerals as well as the rare earth minerals so critical to the semiconductor industry and the ongoing Chip Wars.

 

Ukraine sounds willing to make the concession, but they want a security guarantee against further Russian invasions. This piece is tricky. Sure, one can understand why Ukraine would want such a guarantee from the US and/or NATO. But what is in it for the US/NATO? It only seems to increase the risk of the US/NATO getting sucked into a future war, so it is hard to see why Trump would agree to such a demand.

 

Ukraine has no real bargaining power here, and Trump seems intent on striking the best deal for the US – he doesn’t care for the West as a group. A rude surprise for the West, but not a bad thing for the other powers (Russia, China, India). Power is a zero sum game: A decrease in Western power will only increase the power of the others.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Europe #3 - Innsbruck

The last city we visited in Europe was Innsbruck in the Austrian Alps. After the cold and windy experience (at times) of Paris and Netherlands, Innsbruck was a wonderful change – it didn’t feel that cold, it was not windy all of which made it easy to walk around. Something absolutely necessary given how scenic the place is.   Since the hotel check-in time was much later in the day, we left the baggage and went to the Swarovski HQ-cum-museum about an hour by bus from Innsbruck. The crystal exhibits were brilliant – colorful, bright, shiny. Jewellery aside, it was a display of what one can do with crystals. While my wife and daughter loved the jewellery, I liked the superhero themed exhibits of Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk, and Star Wars. We didn’t buy anything there, though we did buy stuff in the Swarovski store in Innsbruck – jewellery, not the superhero stuff.   Innsbruck is a major tourist attraction during the skiing season but now in summer, we saw many groups of ...
Read more

Chess is too Boring

“Chess has problems at the grandmaster level...They're not getting a great game”, wrote Christian Donlan . Amen to that: Anand and his challenger, Magnus Carlsen drew their first game in just 16 moves. It gets worse: games between the top 20 end in draws 60% of the time. And Donlan adds that “games often end in resignation when an actual victory starts to loom on the distant horizon.” That often means that the average player (or fan) often has no clue why one guy won (since he can’t see that far ahead)! Then there’s all that memorization (of openings, of end games and everything in between). All that memorization is sort of against the spirit of the game, says Zachary Burns, “We want it to be a game of creativity and positional play.” Many have tried to change the rules of the game in the past for these exact reasons, including Bobby Fischer with his Chess960 variant. More recently, David Sirlin tried to make things interesting via his variant, Chess 2. So what are his c...
Read more

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn...
Read more