Political scientist Yascha Mounk: “For Washington, the world is divided into spheres of influence; those who divide it are the US, Russia and China”
The phone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has just ended. A call on which not only the future of the war in Ukraine but also, in a way, the future of all of Europe may depend. Yascha Mounk – a political scientist, one of the leading scholars of the crisis of liberal democracy and the rise of populism – had expressed concern in recent days about what was predicted to be a deal in which Ukraine had everything to lose and Russia everything to gain. After the call ended, he is not surprised.
“For months now, the situation has seemed to be heading in this direction, with Ukraine being forced to accept the loss of part of its sovereign territory. It has long been clear that it is unable to expel the Russian army from its territory, and therefore, in some way, some form of cessation of hostilities is necessary. The problem is that, even if this reality exists, we would have needed a condition to achieve a peace that is, if not just, at least as little unjust as possible,” says Yascha Mounk.
What is this condition?
Continued public and military support from the United States and Europe, in order to force Putin to make real concessions. The fear at this point is not the ceasefire, which we all want, but that it will be accepted that part of Ukrainian territory will remain under Russian control and that nothing will be demanded from Russia in return. These two things, even if they bring peace, will not bring a lasting peace, given Putin’s expansionist ambitions.
Does Putin emerge rehabilitated and strengthened from this phone call with Trump?
The scandal is not that Trump talks to Putin, but the way he talks about him. Trump talks about ‘separating Ukrainian assets.’ This is business language, more than diplomacy. There is also a contradiction in what I call his dual instinct in foreign policy: he speaks very aggressively when it comes to Panama, Canada, Greenland – countries for which he seems to have expansionist ambitions. On the other hand, when he talks about Ukraine, but also about Taiwan and other territories, he seems to be saying that the interests of the United States are not to expand, but rather, to leave control over these territories to powers historically hostile to the United States.
In fact, I think there is an explanation for this apparent paradox: Trump sees the world as divided into spheres of influence. He believes that Ukraine is part of Russia’s natural sphere of influence, that Taiwan is part of China’s natural sphere of influence, and that Greenland or Panama should be part of the United States’ natural sphere of influence. All this is accompanied by an opportunistic approach, according to which the objective is to take advantage of those areas that are under the direct influence of the United States, and to abandon the others to Russia or China, with complete indifference to the previous world order.
In this context, how does Trump see Europe?
It is an ally, but it matters more or less depending on how much it serves American interests. Eastern Europe is okay with remaining under Russian influence, and therefore not being protected; Western Europe is better off remaining in the United States’ sphere of influence, but under much less favorable conditions than before. In this new world context, Europe must decide what to do: whether it wants to be an entity whose fate is determined by distant politicians or dictators, or whether it wants to become the mistress of its own destiny.
And if it wants to take control of its future, it needs to change a lot, not just spend more on defense, but also become a real economic force in the world again, which means producing modern aircraft, having competitive electric vehicles, being at the forefront of research on artificial intelligence. For a long time, Europe has thought that it could follow an Italian model, a slow but quite comfortable decline. In this new world reality, it seems to me that this option no longer exists.
Ursula von der Leyen says if Europe wants peace, it must prepare for war?
The history of the last 20 years has shown us that Putin sees any form of weakness as a provocation. He has seen the possibility of expanding his territory with Georgia and Ukraine – and with other countries – as an invitation to start a war and to realize his real goal: to undo what he considers the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the XNUMXth century – the collapse of the Soviet Union. I believe that the best way to protect against the threat of Russian expansion is to have a credible deterrent force, but to do that, you also need to be able to defend yourself. No one in Europe wants war, but sometimes the best way to avoid war is to know how to defend yourself.
