President Donald Trump deserves sincere praise and encouragement for his continuing, so far pretty thankless effort to bring about peace in the Russia-Ukraine war. He quite properly emphasizes the terrible human carnage of this conflict, involving civilians as well as the military.
Given the fundamental values and ideals of our nation, seeking — and ideally, fulfilling — the role of committed peacemaker is directly in line with the human and egalitarian values expressed brilliantly in our Declaration of Independence. Our Civil War reconfirmed that egalitarian commitment, at enormous human cost.
The 20th century brought a reluctant United States into international leadership, decisively. U.S. resources and leadership were vital to defending Europe, and then Asia, from the powerful expansionist drives of dictatorship, in the second of these wars, turning back and then destroying the new menace of militarist totalitarianism.
When the Cold War emerged not long after the end of the Second World War, the U.S. was committed to international leadership, and again eventually secured victory. Initially, this commitment was much more on the part of the nation’s leaders than the public at large.
Thanks to extremely skillful, courageous presidents, in particular Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, the commitment to internationalism became general, and isolationism faded.
President Trump’s efforts regarding Ukraine are directly in line with this powerful tradition, yet there has been no broad rallying of support, either at home or abroad.
Why is this the case? The reasons are numerous and rather complex.
First, established mainstream media, abroad as well as at home, has become accustomed to almost automatically opposing Trump. Actually, he has encouraged the adversarial relationship, especially in his initial rise to national political influence and power in 2015-2016. Hostility to established institutions and powers, including the dominant mass media, was a central theme and remains important. “Draining and swamp,” in Washington and elsewhere, remains persuasive.
Second, Europe’s leaders have been publicly critical of Trump’s efforts regarding Ukraine, including his latest peace proposal. Very blunt public criticism by the administration regarding Europe’s alleged failures and shortcomings, especially regarding defense, has created distance and friction. Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have provided a continuing background chorus to Trump’s adversarial stance.
Third, and related, Trump’s disdain for traditional diplomacy, handled quietly and behind the scenes, has significantly exacerbated problems with the Europeans.
Yet European leaders on their own have not yet been able to organize an effective, successful end to Russia’s military aggression.
Literally for decades, the European Union has aspired to a cohesive international role. For this reason, Henry Kissinger, during the Nixon administration, declared 1973 to be “The Year of Europe,” with great media fanfare. He – and his boss – were acknowledging at least the ambition, if not the reality.
Trump has stirred the Europeans to do more on national defense. Particularly notable is Germany’s planning to use highways for aircraft runways as well as military ground transport. This particular effort recalls the Third Reich’s successful use of highways for the efficient movement of the military.
Today, however, the goal is effective defense against outside aggression against the durable NATO alliance rather than initiating aggression against others.
Russia is demonstrating expanded capability. The Wall Street Journal has reported in detail on Moscow’s destruction of Ukrainian forces by drones behind the front lines. Until now, Ukraine has had the upper hand in this capacity.
Let’s hope Trump’s peace effort is successful.
Arthur I. Cyr is author of “After the Cold War – American Foreign Policy, Europe and Asia” (NYU Press and Palgrave/Macmillan).
Contact acyr@carthage.edu
