Our role in Trump’s brutal bid to end a war

If we’re talking about an unwinnable conflict, then, it makes sense to contain losses rather than accrue them. This is Trump’s message, although surrounded by distracting inaccuracies, writes Tim Blair.

x x x x x x x x

First things first: US President Donald Trump’s comments last week about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky were wrong, terrible and cruel.

Contrary to Trump’s assertions, Zelensky did not start the war with Russia, he is not a dictator, and he enjoys an approval rating somewhat greater than 4 per cent.

In line with the general commentariat consensus, let me add that Zelensky is an angelic cross between Winston Churchill and a fluffy little bunny, and that Ukraine is a vice-free paradise utterly untouched by greed and corruption.

Lock that in. Beyond this point, matters become slightly more challenging.

Even if you’re in the fluffy bunny camp, it is difficult to foresee any way in which Ukraine can ever completely subdue, much less repel, Russia’s invaders.

Russian might may not be right, but it is still might – at least in relative terms. Being unable to quickly win a border battle against Ukraine, you wouldn’t bet on Russia consuming the rest of Europe, as some apparently fear.

If we’re talking about an unwinnable conflict, then, it makes sense to contain losses rather than accrue them. This is Trump’s message, although surrounded by the abovementioned wild and distracting inaccuracies.

Contrary to Donald Trump’s assertions, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is no dictator. Paula Bronstein/Getty Images)

“Zelensky better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “His Country is shattered, and MILLIONS have unnecessarily died.”

No inaccuracies there. Freddy Gray, editor of The Spectator’s excellent US edition, is no Trump fan – referring to that post’s “insensitivity”, “febrile exaggerations”, and immature “score-settling” – but he nevertheless identified an admirable and achievable Trump aim.

“Only offensive, odious Donald could end the war in Ukraine, which he is now doing. Europe has failed to bring peace.” Gray wrote last week.

“The West has invested a huge amount of capital – political, economic and strategic – in the fight against Russia, and it has failed. Trump knows that and so he’s ending the war: if that means insulting Volodymyr Zelensky, parroting Russian talking points and playing nice with Putin, so be it.”

It’s a morals and money question: does the US keep arming and enriching Ukraine, or does it seek a peace deal involving some Ukrainian sacrifice – therefore rewarding Russia and its tyrannical leader?

All of this may seem very removed from our own circumstances, but it is not. We in Australia are in fact ideally placed to consider this sort of ethical dilemma – for we all make Ukraine-style moral and ethical calculations every single day.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and then Republican presidential nominee President Donald Trump, gather for a meeting on September 27, 2024 in New York City. Picture: Alex Kent/Getty Images/AFP

It is easy for Australian politicians and pundits to rail against Putin, for we risk very little in terms of trade. Even before invasion sanctions kicked in, out total exports to Russia only ran to $723m per year – not even enough to keep ABC salaries topped up beyond about mid-August.

So we’re safe calling Putin a criminal and a monster.

But our national tone dramatically shifts when it comes to communist China – a wicked dictatorship much larger and more aggressively expansionist than Russia, and armed with nuclear weapons that (unlike Russia’s rusty old Soviet-era stockpile) might actually work.

Imagine Prime Minister Anthony Albanese – or any senior Australian politician for that matter – taking anything like the same gentle tone with Putin and Russia as they do with his brother in bloodshed, Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin makes a toast with servicemen awarded with Gold Star medals of "Hero of Russia". Picture: Alexander Kazakov/Pool/AFP AFP)

Albanese last November described his trade talks with a nation that uses slave labour, imprisons dissidents and wants Taiwanese independence activists to face the death penalty.

“My job is to speak on behalf of Australia … and Australia has an interest in free and fair trade,” he said.

“China will speak on behalf of China. We’re a trading nation and Australia believes that there should be international norms of trade … that we should abide by them.”

Gotta love those international norms. As for human rights abuses – the sort of things that rightly distress Ukraine’s defenders – Albanese claimed to be a repeat raiser.

“I raised (with Xi) the issues of human rights. I raised Taiwan. I raised cyber,” Albanese said, presumably raising his voice.

“I raised the supply of assets to Russia. I raised the ICBM missile test that I previously raised as well with the Chinese Premier. So, we raised issues that matter to us, to Australia.”

But Australia raises gigantic, economy-sustaining capital from our Chinese trade, so we’ll never deploy the equivalent of Russian sanctions.

We largely ignore human rights atrocities in favour of cashing in. We’ve made our deal.

Trump wants to cut US spending on Ukraine and end the war, admittedly at some serious sovereign cost. Yet, in a way, Trump’s deal may be easier to live with than ours.