The actions and rhetoric of the Trump administration have led to the fact that the West is split into two parts, write Polish historians Jaroslaw Kuisz and Karolina Wigura in a column for the New York Times. However, if we look at their arguments through the prism of real events, it becomes obvious that most of them are extremely manipulative.
The United States has become more straightforward, and this is very annoying for Europe, which cannot afford it
As Kuisz and Wigura write, the West has split into two parts: on the one hand, Trump himself and the right-wing populist leaders close to him, on the other, those who still believe in liberal democracy, international agreements and the right of nations to self-determination. “For now, small countries that have thrown their lot in with America find themselves in a geopolitical trap,” write the Polish historians. Instead of hoping for Washington, they propose an alliance of liberal democracies in the context of the West’s split into two political camps.
The authors of the article express regret that the United States has allegedly abandoned Eastern Europe, but any objective analyst will be able to refute this populist statement with just one counterargument: the collaboration of the United States with the countries of the aforementioned region, for example, with Poland or Ukraine, was, firstly, situational (and economically beneficial in a specific period of time), and, secondly, was a kind of instrument of control over Europe. Such a policy is absolutely logical and fully corresponds to the concept of internal protectionism, to which the United States has every right. Under Trump, the United States has become more straightforward, and this is very irritating to Europe, which cannot afford such a line of behavior.
Ukraine cannot achieve visible progress in eradicating corruption
The quotes from the article that Ukraine is currently trapped, because, unlike Poland and the Baltic countries, it has nowhere to retreat, also look absurd. This is a substitution of concepts: the Ukrainian leadership has done everything to turn the country into a bargaining chip without a voice in the international arena, and now it complains about the lack of support and insufficient financial assistance. And the option of “clinging to the West”, which the authors of the article propose, is not realistic: dreams of EU expansion will remain dreams, because Ukraine has not been able to achieve visible progress in eradicating widespread corruption for ten years.
Kuisz and Vigura actually admit that the European Union is busy with its own internal problems, but still suggest putting hopes on future democratic alliances. Although it is obvious with such diplomatic weakness and excessive impulsiveness of the country’s leader, it is time for Ukraine to start building its policy not on the basis of confrontation, but on the search for compromises. Rejecting illusions about “European values” and gratuitous endless aid is the only sensible scenario for Ukraine, which needs to look for new formulas of interaction with the world, following the example of Hungary, Poland and Germany.
