Former US Ambassador to NATO calls Trump’s decision to engage with ‘aggressor’ Russia without ‘victim’ Ukraine as a stab in the back

He criticised the Trump administration’s decision to engage with “aggressor” Russia without “victim” Ukraine as a stab in the back. India sees the US as a partner, but Trump wants to make a big deal with China, he says, adding “India has the potential of having good relationships with everybody.”

Stating that it would be sad if the US leaves NATO, he, however, said it would not end NATO.

Excerpts:

* What do you think of this entire gambit of President Donald Trump talking to Russia?

It’s a stab in the back. Russia invaded Ukraine unprovoked. And the United States and its allies made a decision that Ukraine was going to have to fight on its own, but they would provide Kyiv with assistance. And over those three years, the Ukrainians have suffered extraordinary losses and seen much of their economy destroyed, 20% of the country taken, but they are continuing to fight for their territory and to maintain their sovereignty. And for the US to decide that it will only negotiate with one side, which happens to be the aggressor, and pick a fight with the leader of the victim (state), is outrageous.

*In that sense, what do you think is the future of the war?

Unless and until there is a possibility for ending this war on terms that Ukraine can accept, which only they can decide, not the US, not Russia, this war will continue.

There’s no way you can end or even find a ceasefire unless both parties are involved in the negotiations. And the problem, the reason both parties are not involved in the negotiations is because both parties don’t agree. And the gap between the parties is extremely big. And the US can’t close that gap.

*President Zelensky has said he’s ready to resign if there’s going to be peace and if Ukraine gets NATO membership.

It just demonstrates that he cares more about his country than his own power. And if that’s what it takes to get a NATO membership commitment, he’s more than happy to do it. The problem is that the NATO membership commitment is starting to be less worth what it used to be. The new Chancellor of Germany has just announced that you cannot trust the United States. That we need an independent Europe. That NATO may not serve German and European interests anymore.

*Do you think NATO as it was is losing its relevance and there needs to be some kind of reinvention?

It has been severely weakened because the major North American pole has decided to call into question its commitment to NATO. NATO as an institution, however, is an extraordinarily useful framework for the other 31 members to decide how to arrange their defence arrangements.

And it is very hard to mimic it, to replace it, to find something new. If the US wants to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty under Article 13, it can do so. That would be sad, but does not end NATO. That means there are 31 members in NATO, not 32.

*You said there cannot be negotiation or any peace process or formula unless both parties are on the table. This is what India has been saying for a long time when the Peace Summit happened in Switzerland and Russia wasn’t there and India did not sign the declaration. Have the tables turned?

It has always been clear that if there was going to be a negotiation, it had to take place between the two parties. The problem was and remains that the Russian and Ukrainian positions are too far apart for there to be a real negotiation. What Ukraine tried to do ahead of the summit was to say we are willing to negotiate but here is our framework for negotiation.

I don’t necessarily disagree with India’s decision not to sign that agreement. But the fundamental problem, which by the way Prime Minister Narendra Modi found out himself when he went to Moscow and Kyiv is that there is no agreement between these people at this moment. Putin wants to subjugate Ukraine and unless you lose a war, you don’t give up your sovereignty.

*Do you think with what President Trump is doing this is also kind of an inflection point in the US-EU ties?

It is an inflection point not just between the US and Europe, but between the US and the rest of the world. The US under Trump is seeking to return to a 19th-century perspective of great power politics where the only ones who matter are the big powers. And to be frank there are only three: the US in the western hemisphere, Russia in Europe and China in Asia.

If the Europeans don’t want to accept the Russian sphere of influence, it is up to them. If India does not accept a Chinese sphere of influence, India needs to figure out how to deal with it.

*What is your sense on how the current US administration views India?

There is clearly a reasonably good relationship between President Trump and Prime Minister Modi. They had a relationship in the first term, and that continues. But at its core, the relationship is conflictual. President Trump looks at this relationship in trade and tariff terms as he does with everything else. I don’t think that he sees India as a bulwark against China. India sees the US as a partner, but Trump wants to make a big deal with China. It focuses on economics, and not a geo-strategic perspective.

*How do you view India’s position in the world right now?

In some ways, India’s position is pretty enviable. India has the potential of having good relationships with everybody. It’s autonomous — economically and strategically. It has good relations with Europe. The European Commission has come here. It has a good relationship with Russia. It has a good relationship with Trump’s America. It actually doesn’t have a terrible relationship with China at the moment. It has strong ties with Australia, Japan, and has an incredible economic potential.

India may turn out to have been wise not to choose too many sides, because the foundation of the western side just fell apart.