Trump’s War on Two Front’s
For quite some time, I have stated that the playbook is to blame Trump for war to remove him or now to remove him if he chooses not to participate. That could still be at play based on the events over the weekend.
Over the weekend, Zelensky suggested that the U.S.—and by extension, NATO—could become involved in the war. This is particularly notable given the possibility that Ukraine may no longer receive U.S. funding at the same level as before which I mentioned over the weekend:
Ukraine, Realpolitik, and the Sunk Cost of War
When analyzing the Ukraine war, one must think through the lens of realpolitik rather than just diplomacy. Zelenskyy has repeatedly argued that diplomacy has historically failed with Putin, which has frustrated the Oval Office. In response, the President counters with the argument that “he wasn’t there” and “he didn’t make the deal”—a claim that holds w…
If Zelensky can’t secure funding in the way he’s accustomed to, he has a strong incentive to undermine any potential deals with Trump. However, he can’t simply sit idle. His only other option is to entangle NATO in the conflict, which would either help him secure the support he needs or create a pathway to removing Trump from office—something much of the global establishment wants to see.
Trump’s War on Two Front’s
Evidence of this can be seen in the UK’s and EU’s response to everything that has happened. Now, why might this be the case? Undermining and removing Trump would likely ensure that all EU/NATO trade surpluses and NATO funding remain intact.
There are strong economic incentives to maintain and accelerate the status quo. For reference , several trade wars have escalated into violent conflicts. Notable examples include:
• The First Opium War (1839-1842): Began as a trade dispute between Britain and China over opium trade, leading to military action.
• The War of 1812: Triggered by British trade restrictions and impressment of American sailors during the Napoleonic Wars.
• The Anglo-Dutch Wars: Started over trade disputes, including control of seas and trade routes.
• The Massacre of the Bandanese: Resulted from alleged violations of a trade treaty
The Role of NATO in U.S. Politics
In late 2023, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, Congress passed legislation preventing any president from unilaterally withdrawing the United States from NATO. Sponsored by Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL)—the current Secretary of State—the measure requires either an act of Congress or approval from two-thirds of the Senate for such a withdrawal.
*Rubio’s comments are quite interesting. He says his job as Secretary of State is to “try to end war.” He doesn’t deny that Zelensky doesn’t want peace, nor does he deny his past comments about Putin. However, he claims he doesn’t know what everyone’s implicit demands are.
If there is no peace, then there is war—this is political rhetoric from someone who spearheaded efforts to bind NATO and the United States together.
This bipartisan move was largely aimed at concerns over Trump’s potential return to office, given his past criticisms of NATO. The law ensures that any attempt to leave the alliance would face significant legal and political hurdles, reinforcing congressional oversight in foreign policy decisions.
The Strategic Dilemma
If Trump were to push for leaving NATO, it would be a major strategic victory for Vladimir Putin and peace, as it would weaken the alliance. However, if the U.S. remains in NATO and is drawn into a conflict—such as through the triggering of Article 5 in response to aggression—Trump could find himself politically vulnerable. If he refuses to honor NATO commitments, it could open a path to impeachment or removal from office.
Meanwhile, Putin is playing with ‘house’ money.
1. If Trump actively participates as Commander-in-Chief, his relationship with Putin might help ensure that the conflict does not escalate to a nuclear level especially since China will assert itself. Notably, China has the largest trade surplus with the United States. Meanwhile, North Korea is already participating.
2. However, if Trump refuses to engage, NATO is weakened. Yet, this scenario could be used to remove him and accelerate the status quo.
3. If a peace deal is reached, Russia is likely to secure some of the territorial gains it has made in Ukraine.
Ultimately, the geopolitical stakes are high, with both sides maneuvering to shape the future of NATO, Ukraine, and the broader global order.