Photo taken on April 8, 2021 shows the White House in Washington, DC, the United States. [Photo/XINHUA]
The world has been taken aback by the speed at which the geopolitical situation has changed over the last few weeks. On Feb 12, President of the United States Donald Trump placed a call to Russian President Vladimir Putin, effectively breaking the isolation Western leaders have tried to place Putin in over the last three years. Then, a week later, high-level US and Russian representatives sat down together at a meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to discuss working out a program for normalizing US-Russia relations.
On Feb 24, Trump himself sat down at the White House with French President Emmanuel Macron, the first European leader he met after his groundbreaking phone call with Putin. On Feb 27, he met in the White House with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Both leaders expressed support for Trump's peace initiative, a change from their previous positions.
The failure of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Feb 28 to sign an economic agreement with the US, demanding a clear security commitment from Trump, set things back, and the fighting will no doubt continue. Yet it's clear that the determination of the Trump administration to move toward peace in Ukraine will nevertheless mean that continued military action will only be conducted without US support.
And it is questionable under these circumstances how long the Ukrainians can continue.
On Feb 24, the US proposed a draft resolution in the United Nations Security Council, which called for peace in Ukraine. Five countries — the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Greece and Slovenia — abstained, allowing the resolution, which is binding, to pass. The five countries wanted to include a condemnation of Russia, which they hold solely responsible for the conflict.
The US-Russia discussions are ongoing and the diplomatic relationship between the two countries will now be re-established to their full extent. Many have questioned the motives of Trump in this matter, but his purpose seems to be clear. He has continually warned that the prolonged conflict in Ukraine could lead to World War III, and he was committed to preventing that. This was a key plank of his presidential bid. His attempt to sign a deal on Ukraine's raw materials, however, perhaps made him appear more of a "dealmaker" than a "peacemaker", although he himself indicated that a subsequent heavy US industrial presence in Ukraine would itself serve as something of a security guarantee.
There are also certain suspicions that there may be a "hidden agenda" in Trump's peace policy toward Russia aimed at creating a fissure in the close Russia-China relationship. Recent statements by his Secretary of State seem to imply that. It is doubtful, however, that the US could accomplish such a task, as both China and Russia have a similar view of the world order, which is quite different from that expressed by the Trump administration.
While there has been great relief in Russia over the moves by the US President toward a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine crisis, there is still some trepidation with regard to where Trump hopes to go with his policy.
Some of the rhetoric coming out of the Trump administration with regard to China has been hard-edged, as have been the further restrictions placed on export of high-tech products to China and the increased tariffs. And Trump's rather unusual comments about how he would welcome more Chinese investment in the US are in stark contrast to the restrictions on such investment imposed by his Commerce Department.
It remains to be seen what effect the blanket tariff policy will have on the US economy itself. It is clear that the immediate effect will be to drive up prices, and as fighting inflation was one of the major planks of Trump's electoral victory, he will have to begin showing results on this front if he is to retain his strong support from the US voters. It may very well be the case that prolonged inflation fueled by the higher prices will force him to pull back on tariff restrictions in order to assure a greater supply of goods from abroad to hold inflation in check.
Rebuilding the US economy will also require infrastructure investment. If he is also sincere in his desire to rebuild the US economy, then he should follow through on his comments and create opportunities for China to invest in the US, which has proved itself most successful in infrastructure development. There could be more success stories like the Fuyao Glass America factory in Ohio that could play a role in Trump's envisioned "Make America Great Again". But it requires that the Trump administration lays out a "welcome mat" to potential Chinese investors and not erect a "Chinese wall" against them.
The author is the former Washington bureau chief for Executive Intelligence Review. He's also a nonresident fellow at Renmin University of China's Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies.
