Divisions in the Collective West

 The Nato-Russian proxy war has evolved into a multifaceted conflict involving horizontal and vertical divisions within the collective West.

1. Trans-Atlantic division:

The divide within the West is not solely about Russia; it spans several contentious issues. The Trump administration perceives that the United States is being exploited by its allies, claiming they develop their countries at the expense of US investments in security and global agendas.

This conflict continues a troubling trend that emerged during Trump's first term. Trump believes that the Allies benefit from the US while the US experiences economic losses.

- Since Donald Trump returned to the White House amid a Republican "red wave," the dispute within the collective West has intensified.
- Trump's announcements regarding his desire to control Greenland, his proposal to make Canada the 51st state of the United States, and the imposition of tariffs on Canadian, Mexican, and some European Union exports.

As US Vice President JD Vance said at the Munich Security Conference, the disagreements among allies extend beyond trade to encompass security and what Americans define as "democratic values and freedom of expression," which affect not only European citizens but also American companies.

- Following Trump's inauguration, European leaders quickly convened emergency summits to discuss security concerns.
Should Trump choose to withdraw the American security umbrella over the continent, the Europeans will have to take responsibility for their own security.

2. Divisions Within Europe:

In the wake of the clash between Zelensky and the Trump administration, several European leaders, including Canada's Prime Minister and NATO officials, expressed support for Zelensky and Ukraine without directly naming Trump or the US. Others supported the US in its efforts for peace in Ukraine.

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas strongly supported Zelensky. She emphasized, "Today, it has become clear that the free world needs a new leader. It is up to us, the Europeans, to accept this challenge."

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, addressed Zelensky saying, "Your dignity honors the courage of the Ukrainian people. Be strong, be brave, be fearless. You are never alone."

Conversely, divisions are also apparent within the European right. Some right-wing leaders, such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, have aligned with Trump, while Sweden's ruling right supported Zelensky.

3. To conclude:

- It will be difficult for Europe and Ukraine to sustain their efforts against Russia without American support.

- Should Trump decide to withdraw military assistance for Ukraine and relax sanctions on Russia, the European Union could face a severe dilemma that has not been seen since World War II.

Is Lebanon heading to a normalization pact with Israel?

Israel is taking advantage of recent developments to occupy parts of neighboring countries. Some say that Israel will not withdraw its forces from Lebanon before signing a normalization agreement.
Several Israeli officials declared their goal to include Lebanon and Syria in upcoming normalization agreements.

It is important to note that all Arab states, including Lebanon, will follow the Arab consensus, primarily led by Saudi Arabia. This consensus calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital before any future normalization with Israel.

That has been said, we can anticipate a prolonged Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories.
This situation may lead to a renewed emphasis on the principle of resistance (based on the right of the People to self-determination) unless the United States exerts pressure on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.

Did Trump and Vance ambush Zelensky?

 

Neither Trump nor Vance sought to humiliate President Zelensky. They were calm and avoided confrontational remarks at the beginning of the press conference.

Surprisingly, Trump maintained a reserved posture throughout the proceedings. In response to inquiries regarding the potential mineral agreement, he consistently stated, “We will see,” while reiterating his commitment to continuing military aid to Ukraine.

- Zelensky was anxious during the conference. Whenever Trump suggested the necessity of concluding the war, he interrupted assertively, emphasizing that Russia must face accountability as the aggressor in the conflict.

- The debate escalated when Trump said that any potential deal would be untenable if Zelensky continued to express negative, harsh comments about Putin.
Vance clarified Trump’s position, underscoring the importance of diplomacy and critiquing the previous President, Biden’s comments on Putin.

Interestingly, Zelensky started questioning Vance, which led to the heated exchange we saw.

Conclusion:

- The Trump administration dislikes Zelensky for his involvement in supporting Harris’ campaign in October, a point underscored by Vance during the heated exchange.
- Zelensky is not ready for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine war.
- His European allies have encouraged him to confront Trump in peace negotiations and the deal with Russia.
- The Europeans are not able to secure Ukraine’s interests or achieve victory in the ongoing conflict without US military support.

- Zelensky would have achieved a good deal behind closed doors, yet his anxiety was apparent. Ukraine is not in a good position, and this exchange was not fruitful.

Zelensky’s provocative approach in the Oval Office and the support he received from European leaders following his contentious appearance at the White House exacerbated Ukraine’s crisis and yielded little benefit for the Ukrainians.

The collective West is in trouble. European bureaucrats' declaration that the “free world” must identify a new leader only adds more complexity to an already challenging situation, ultimately undermining both European and Ukrainian interests.

In conclusion, the United States remains the ultimate Global power within the collective West and globally. European leaders would be misguided to assume they can navigate dealings with Trump as they did during his first term.

US Defense Budget: Signs of a Changing Global Order?

 

- Unexpectedly, the US Secretary of Defense has unveiled plans to gradually reduce the defense budget, aiming for an 8% annual cut over the coming years.
- Aiming for budget reduction, President Trump has reiterated his desire to reinitiate nuclear arms control talks with Russia and China—envisioning a future where all three nations agree to halve their massive defense expenditures.
- This contrasts sharply with his first term, when the National Security Strategy was centered on rebuilding military strength in response to global strategic threats, particularly from adversaries like Russia and China.
- As Trump undertakes his new term, he is shifting away from the relentless arms race that has long defined international relations.

What does this mean for the global competition?

Beyond budget cutting, this shift carries profound international implications:
1- A Change in the US Threat Perceptions, particularly with Russia and China.
2- Potential for Reduced Tensions globally.

Will this strategy succeed?
Success hinges on two key factors:
1- Internally: His ability to contain the deep-state factions that favor wars and military interventions.
2- Globally: Balancing Global Security Demands: It will be essential to achieve a credible "security for all" that satisfies not only US interests but also addresses the strategic concerns of Russia and China.