Phillips, a very interesting response to the question plus your final postscript which I find hard to reconcile given recent talk from a number of European capitals.
You have quite rightly identified the failure of Europe to stand on its own as a weak link but I would suggest that the capitulation of Europe to Trump is not a foregone conclusion (except Fico and Orban). Recent talk emanating from a number of European capitals suggests to me that behind the scenes more is going on than we know. Perhaps, finally, Europe is waking up to the fact that the US is no longer the reliable custodian of the post war era and Trump has demonstrated that in the few days he has been President. The pardons of felons convicted of violence on 6 Jan 21 clearly shows that "the rule of law" is what Trump says it is. This single act in and of itself has shown Europe and the UK that America no longer has the values that we do and is no longer a reliable ally.
Ursula VDL, Kaja Kallas, Starmer and his 100yr "contract" with Ukraine, the continued staunch support of the Baltics, Poland, Scandinavian countries and Czech Rep. In addition, France and Germany all indicate to me that they are preparing for the evential sell out by Trump of Ukraine to Russia.
What you are seeing in Davos is a moderated response, they don't want to poke the bear until they have to, but Trump will sell out Ukraine and at that point, I am convinced, Europe will respond accordingly. They could have done it a lot sooner but they are beginning to realise their security is dependent on Ukraine winning and Russia not being rewarded for their illegal actions.
I'm sure Europe and the UK is hoping for the best from Trump but planning for the worst. Time will tell.
Hi Andrew--I would like to be wrong on this. But so far the number 1 goal I heard here (amongst many heads of government and foreign ministers) was to find a way to get Trump onside.
I'm sure they do as that is the easiest way forward. However, he does what he wants and Europe knows this. They will not telegraph intentions which would tick him off before they have given him the chance to come onside. They do have plans, I'm convinced and when he does his crazy stuff they wont cut ties but they will stand up and accept the likely response.
He is a petulant man-child and I'm sure will threaten sanctions but Europe has been planning a response for a while now. The US is going to lose a lot of friends.
Sorry Alan (for writing Andrew). I would like to think that preparations are being made behind the scene. So far there are few signs of this. And the hopes invested in Trump were, imho, just a wee bit pathetic.
The Europeans aren't in any crisis. They have at least a year to play wait-and-see on what deal Trump can deliver. We are "in the season of negotiations" according to Ignatius.
People do not perceive Putin as any kind of juggernaut that will roll through Europe. There is truth to that view.
The prevailing in view is that the war will end with a partition of Ukraine. A reckoning may come, but not in 2025.
Ukraine will not agree to a partition and I suspect will continue fighting with the support of the European nations I mentioned above. You are right though, that Russia is not a juggernaut and will not be racing across Europe but instead Putin will "convince" Trump in a F2F that Ukraine has lost, despite the contrary, and have him pressure them to aquiess to his demands. Of course Ukraine will not. Trump is weak and Putin will make it worth his while with bitcoin (untraceable) and voila, Putin has a new ally. Not that he didn't already.
The likely outcome as I see it is Trump applies pressure to Ukraine as per Putin's wishes, they refuse to stop fighting, certain Europeans continue support and Russia's economy collapses by the end of 2025.
UKR would agree to a de facto partition if it came with adequate security guarantees. In that case I doubt Putin would be interested. I agree that most likely the war will continue without U.S.
Predicting that RU will collapse economically in 2025 is bold. If Russia is as fragile as you suggest perhaps an actual deal is possible.
Very useful comment Richard. Yes, if there are security guarantees, it is possible a partition could be acceptable to Ukraine. However, in return for the Free Republic of Kursk, I'm sure that Ukraine will insist on a return to the Feb 22 partition line which of course would be unacceptable to Putin. Therefore, fighting continues without US support.
Economic collapse was a cheeky comment and rather optimistic on my part, but when things go downhill they do so very quickly. Authoritarian's are strong until they are not. 2025 is the year the arc of justice will bend towards Russian accountability or so I hope.
The chance of the EU Elites 'standing up' to the US - under whoever's Presidency - is non-existent. It really isn't in their Atlanticist, nature. it's been 'Young Leader' programmed out of them. Even the grandstanding alleged 'nationalist' Meloni is happily flogging Italian assets off to the Yanks.
My take on the European response is very similar to yours.
Trump has already indicated that the EU is not relevant, and he will use bilateral trade agreements to divide and conquer. Orban is chortling with glee at the prospect, and at this point it would seem that Giorgia Meloni Will possibly be the first to acceed, with enthusiasm.
If Meloni betrays the EU, no doubt in the pretext of "protecting Italy" everything will depend on how other EU governments react. The EU could rally, or it indeed could damage its coherence beyond repair.
Will be interesting to see if the EU shows a bigger backbone on international trade than dealing with a belligerent Russia. For economies like Germany where export is ~50% of GDP, the prospect of international trade atrophying is an existential problem.
At the same time, consider Mexico, Canada, the EU, China, etc. combined retaliating against US tariff petulance… it will have immediate impacts all over the economy. From the low end with China to the high end with EU machinery / planes.
To me, the whole tariff thing looks and smells like a giant rent seeking operation whose intent is to set the stage for massive personal benefits for those in charge (doling out exemptions).
The Supreme Court keeps narrowing the circumstances under which bribery becomes prosecutable (oh the irony!), while the various tawdry “coins” allow direct investment into financial vehicles controlled by DJT and his inner circle. That’s the glue that will keep the band together.
Bottom line, Trump likely wants to be actually rich now that his state and federal prosecutions have been iced. The Supreme Court has made it ever easier, which is why all the billionaires dutifully lined up in church to celebrate the inauguration. They too are wondering how much they will have to spend on Trump to remain on his good side.
The fake supreme court (bribe-takers) needs to be thrown in prison where they belong. They probably will be if they live long enough; kleptocracies are unstable and the government which replaces them will have them first in its targets.
This seems to be a clear example of the Principle of Least Effort, by which "people and systems naturally gravitate towards the path of least resistance or effort to achieve a desired outcome." This is not an automatically evil concept— every bit of effort that you invest in one task cannot be used elsewhere. Clearly, Europe thinks that Putin is not so threatening a reality that he can't be allowed to chew on Ukraine as a buffer state. As Phil has frequently pointed out, Europe and the United States could settle this and get 40 years of true peace by knocking Putin down, but that would take a very great deal of effort. Particularly, Trump wants to focus his energy and efforts domestically. But he also wants to receive the Nobel Prize, to which he will assert his right by just getting all warring parties to cease, with conflicts paused but unresolved.
There is something to this. With all leaders in Europe watching the next election, they seem frozen about making long-term changes. Best the short term fix.
I think the fundamental flaw of the UN security Council is the fact that it reflected the hopeful delusion that Russia would remain a cooperating security partner. The fact is that once Nazi Germany was no longer a mutual threat, the world instantly returned to the power dynamic of the 1920s where the Soviet Union was regarded as the greatest threat to the rest of Europe. The fact is that a world-encompassing United Nations could not be constructed in 1945—it was an impossibility.
Knocking Putin down is now beyond Europe - and probably the US too. They've not got the industrial capacity now. Worse still the EU is allowing what it has to be cannibalised by the US who have their own energy resources whilst the EU have cut themselves off from theirs. It's minimal energy alright - it's much easier for our transnational Elites to Davos-network , fear-monger and grandstand than it is to take positve steps to improve the lives of their respective populations.
Neoliberalist and the restrictions of the Euro have deinstrustrialised much of the periphery and now the (still a complete mystery) Nordstream explosions have taken care of the Germans. It's over - it's just too much effort to fix.
Phiilliosy, your Postscript is shocking and demoralising. Is it truly that bad? No signs of EU states attempting attempting to rally or speak with one voice?
Of course they do--though the contravention of article 2 is so blatant that the latter is comical. Of course they can get away with it because of the security council.
My first time--what was striking is it might be the least attractive Swiss town Ive seen. Switzerland is full of pretty, old towns--Davos in comparison in ugly.
I was not impressed either. By the town, I mean - not mountains. That was basically at the end of my big drive through Switzerland visiting all cities with population over 30,000. Davos ain't Luzern or Basel.
He starts sharing his analysis at 18:00. He says he is in contact with Ukrainian soldiers. It's possible to turn English subtitles on. Why is it that you and Mykola always have a much positive view of Ukraine's chances as most other observers?
There is a legal case to be made that Russia shouldn't even be on the security council. It is not the Soviet union and has little real claim to be its automatic successor. It's debatable how you can throw them out at this point but a majority vote of the General Assembly to toss them would be a good start.
"The recent revelations that the Biden Administration never really wanted Ukraine to win the war, and as such deliberately limited arms to Ukraine in such a way that it would stretch the war out and cause massive Ukrainian casualties, teaches us much of what we need to know about being “fair”."
This may be your interpretation of the facts but where is the revelation that it is the case? Has some document been released which shows that this was the motivation of the Biden Administration all along?
You will be more credible if you stick to verified facts.
There is nothing in that which supports Phillips' outrageous claim that the Biden Administration deliberately sought to "stretch the war out and cause massive Ukrainian casualties".
It is in no way outrageous--here was how David Ignatius described the administration's strategy in the piece which praised Jake sullivan for being a genius. Ukraine had to pay the "butcher's bill" to attrit Russia.
"It was a sensible, cold-blooded strategy for the United States — to attrit an adversary at low cost to America, while Ukraine was paying the butcher’s bill. That’s not how Sullivan would have described it, but this was the practical effect. Kissinger would have approved."
You can read more in this piece. Im sorry--the Biden administration never helped Ukraine to win--but favored this strategy that dragged out the war and caused massive Ukrainian casualties.
There is a difference between saying that Biden's strategy resulted in dragging out the war and massive Ukrainian casualties, and saying that was his intention all along. You will be more credible in advocating further US assistance to Ukraine if you stick to verifiable facts.
His intention all along was not to have Ukraine achieve victory. That was made very clear in that Time Story. As such he never armed Ukraine to win, and this ended up transforming the war into what we have seen. Ukraine paid the butchers bill because the administration did not want them to win.
I see it close to the same based on the actions of the US. We absolutely armed and supplied them human resources and intelligence to push Russia back into the eastern fifth of Ukraine, without ever stating that was the goal publicly. After that we down shifted which resulted in the deaths of Ukrainian civilians, soldiers and Russian soldiers caught in this war. We enjoyed expanded markets for our petroleum, expanded NATO, reported US deaths have all be volunteers, minimal expansion of defense spending, while direct monetary aid packages have been non-trivial. Any cost benefit analysis would say the US has done very well off of the backs of many deaths, casualties and human suffering in Ukraine/Russia. That was the result, the expected result, the planned result from Biden’s actions.
Great post Phil. I’m happy for you and understand why you were invited to Davos. But I mustn’t dare tell my brother. That would set him off on a 15 minute rant about the WEF being an elitist, globalist cabal trying to gaslight the world into being a post-nationalist, post-industrialist, enviro state. I disagree with him.
After reading all the comments here the one that I agree with the most with me is Kathleen Weber’s comment about the Principle of Least Effort.
Yep, the whole war response has been driven by least effort and least short term risk. With exception of the actions of countries bordering Russia who are appropriately alarmed.
I don't see the stagnation changing in 2025. The lure of Trump somehow pulling a bitter peace out a hat offers another excuse to delay hard choices.
Many thanks for this view from Davos. Having once observed the proceedings close-up (and participated from the comfort of my interpreter's booth !) I far prefer your detailed response here to what was certainly the shorter version in the panel discussion under the watchful eye of the moderator and the tyranny of the clock !
I thoroughly agree with your dismissal of the UN, a vast burocracy that has become, unfortunately, worse than useless. Many years ago, De Gaulle, never one to observe diplomatic niceties when it suited him, referred to it scornfully as "the thing" ( "le machin" in French).
Just a quick point about Europe. I don't think it's helpful to say, as many here do , that "Europe will...." "Europe can't...."or "Europe won't....." What is holding "Europe" back at the moment is that whatever stance it eventually takes (or not) will be in a configuration of which the contours are not yet clear to European leaders themselves, let alone the rest of us. The EU minus a few Putin supporters but plus Norway and the UK - and it can only take shape once Trump has made his own position clear. It's early days yet, but hopefully "Europe" will act before it's too late for Ukraine.
Thanks a lot Phillips for your 2 posts from Davos, illuminating yet sombre…
Made me feel like our appeal “It’s Europe’s time: Let’s not betray Ukraine!”is even more relevant than when it first came out a month or so ago.
If you have time to look at your (probably vey full) emailbox, you’ll find an email from me, with an updated and shortened version that might be considered fit for publication in a British media we contacted - and with a question for you😅.
So many people in power are pathetic weaklings. Trying to curry favor with Trump is... well, at best it'll get you a short-term benefit. This will probably work for Zelensky and Ukraine, which only need a short-term benefit.
But it won't work for France or Germany, who are looking for longer-term things. Because Trump has zero loyalty and will abandon his oldest allies in 10 seconds (he's proven this). And sucking up to Trump makes it *less* likely that you'll get support from a subsequent post-Trump US administration. So it's just stupid.
It’s a bit rich to set the Article 2 breakage clock to zero at 2022. The West and NATO have been dumping all over it for decades with either direct shock-and-awe slaughter or murderous economic siege.
That the ‘old order’ seems like collapsing now is due to it being relentlessly undermined since the 1990s and that the worms now have the economic and military might to turn.
If you’re going to talk about old bureaucracies that are past their sell-by date, then you’ve got to include NATO in your discussion. It’s weapons, tactics and industrial base are being shown to be massively wanting – from artillery shell production to 6th Generation fighters, they’re unable to compete. Worse still, the US’s growth strategy of the last decade has been to cannibalise their vassals – the election of Trump just makes this explicit.
And as for why the EU needs Ukraine, you’ve really got to spell that out to us. Aside from in the usual Davos asset stripping, cheap labour sense I can’t see any reason. Spell it out for us in the cheap-seats Professor.
Phillips, a very interesting response to the question plus your final postscript which I find hard to reconcile given recent talk from a number of European capitals.
You have quite rightly identified the failure of Europe to stand on its own as a weak link but I would suggest that the capitulation of Europe to Trump is not a foregone conclusion (except Fico and Orban). Recent talk emanating from a number of European capitals suggests to me that behind the scenes more is going on than we know. Perhaps, finally, Europe is waking up to the fact that the US is no longer the reliable custodian of the post war era and Trump has demonstrated that in the few days he has been President. The pardons of felons convicted of violence on 6 Jan 21 clearly shows that "the rule of law" is what Trump says it is. This single act in and of itself has shown Europe and the UK that America no longer has the values that we do and is no longer a reliable ally.
Ursula VDL, Kaja Kallas, Starmer and his 100yr "contract" with Ukraine, the continued staunch support of the Baltics, Poland, Scandinavian countries and Czech Rep. In addition, France and Germany all indicate to me that they are preparing for the evential sell out by Trump of Ukraine to Russia.
What you are seeing in Davos is a moderated response, they don't want to poke the bear until they have to, but Trump will sell out Ukraine and at that point, I am convinced, Europe will respond accordingly. They could have done it a lot sooner but they are beginning to realise their security is dependent on Ukraine winning and Russia not being rewarded for their illegal actions.
I'm sure Europe and the UK is hoping for the best from Trump but planning for the worst. Time will tell.
Hi Andrew--I would like to be wrong on this. But so far the number 1 goal I heard here (amongst many heads of government and foreign ministers) was to find a way to get Trump onside.
I'm sure they do as that is the easiest way forward. However, he does what he wants and Europe knows this. They will not telegraph intentions which would tick him off before they have given him the chance to come onside. They do have plans, I'm convinced and when he does his crazy stuff they wont cut ties but they will stand up and accept the likely response.
He is a petulant man-child and I'm sure will threaten sanctions but Europe has been planning a response for a while now. The US is going to lose a lot of friends.
Sorry Alan (for writing Andrew). I would like to think that preparations are being made behind the scene. So far there are few signs of this. And the hopes invested in Trump were, imho, just a wee bit pathetic.
I sincerely hope that you are right
The Europeans aren't in any crisis. They have at least a year to play wait-and-see on what deal Trump can deliver. We are "in the season of negotiations" according to Ignatius.
People do not perceive Putin as any kind of juggernaut that will roll through Europe. There is truth to that view.
The prevailing in view is that the war will end with a partition of Ukraine. A reckoning may come, but not in 2025.
Ukraine will not agree to a partition and I suspect will continue fighting with the support of the European nations I mentioned above. You are right though, that Russia is not a juggernaut and will not be racing across Europe but instead Putin will "convince" Trump in a F2F that Ukraine has lost, despite the contrary, and have him pressure them to aquiess to his demands. Of course Ukraine will not. Trump is weak and Putin will make it worth his while with bitcoin (untraceable) and voila, Putin has a new ally. Not that he didn't already.
The likely outcome as I see it is Trump applies pressure to Ukraine as per Putin's wishes, they refuse to stop fighting, certain Europeans continue support and Russia's economy collapses by the end of 2025.
UKR would agree to a de facto partition if it came with adequate security guarantees. In that case I doubt Putin would be interested. I agree that most likely the war will continue without U.S.
Predicting that RU will collapse economically in 2025 is bold. If Russia is as fragile as you suggest perhaps an actual deal is possible.
Very useful comment Richard. Yes, if there are security guarantees, it is possible a partition could be acceptable to Ukraine. However, in return for the Free Republic of Kursk, I'm sure that Ukraine will insist on a return to the Feb 22 partition line which of course would be unacceptable to Putin. Therefore, fighting continues without US support.
Economic collapse was a cheeky comment and rather optimistic on my part, but when things go downhill they do so very quickly. Authoritarian's are strong until they are not. 2025 is the year the arc of justice will bend towards Russian accountability or so I hope.
The chance of the EU Elites 'standing up' to the US - under whoever's Presidency - is non-existent. It really isn't in their Atlanticist, nature. it's been 'Young Leader' programmed out of them. Even the grandstanding alleged 'nationalist' Meloni is happily flogging Italian assets off to the Yanks.
My take on the European response is very similar to yours.
Trump has already indicated that the EU is not relevant, and he will use bilateral trade agreements to divide and conquer. Orban is chortling with glee at the prospect, and at this point it would seem that Giorgia Meloni Will possibly be the first to acceed, with enthusiasm.
If Meloni betrays the EU, no doubt in the pretext of "protecting Italy" everything will depend on how other EU governments react. The EU could rally, or it indeed could damage its coherence beyond repair.
Europe is about to get its brains bashed in on trade--and really doesnt know how to respond.
Will be interesting to see if the EU shows a bigger backbone on international trade than dealing with a belligerent Russia. For economies like Germany where export is ~50% of GDP, the prospect of international trade atrophying is an existential problem.
At the same time, consider Mexico, Canada, the EU, China, etc. combined retaliating against US tariff petulance… it will have immediate impacts all over the economy. From the low end with China to the high end with EU machinery / planes.
To me, the whole tariff thing looks and smells like a giant rent seeking operation whose intent is to set the stage for massive personal benefits for those in charge (doling out exemptions).
The Supreme Court keeps narrowing the circumstances under which bribery becomes prosecutable (oh the irony!), while the various tawdry “coins” allow direct investment into financial vehicles controlled by DJT and his inner circle. That’s the glue that will keep the band together.
Bottom line, Trump likely wants to be actually rich now that his state and federal prosecutions have been iced. The Supreme Court has made it ever easier, which is why all the billionaires dutifully lined up in church to celebrate the inauguration. They too are wondering how much they will have to spend on Trump to remain on his good side.
The fake supreme court (bribe-takers) needs to be thrown in prison where they belong. They probably will be if they live long enough; kleptocracies are unstable and the government which replaces them will have them first in its targets.
What energy will German be using to make the things they used to export? How much will that cost compared to their 2021 prices?
We can hope.
This seems to be a clear example of the Principle of Least Effort, by which "people and systems naturally gravitate towards the path of least resistance or effort to achieve a desired outcome." This is not an automatically evil concept— every bit of effort that you invest in one task cannot be used elsewhere. Clearly, Europe thinks that Putin is not so threatening a reality that he can't be allowed to chew on Ukraine as a buffer state. As Phil has frequently pointed out, Europe and the United States could settle this and get 40 years of true peace by knocking Putin down, but that would take a very great deal of effort. Particularly, Trump wants to focus his energy and efforts domestically. But he also wants to receive the Nobel Prize, to which he will assert his right by just getting all warring parties to cease, with conflicts paused but unresolved.
There is something to this. With all leaders in Europe watching the next election, they seem frozen about making long-term changes. Best the short term fix.
By the next election you mean in Germany?
I think the fundamental flaw of the UN security Council is the fact that it reflected the hopeful delusion that Russia would remain a cooperating security partner. The fact is that once Nazi Germany was no longer a mutual threat, the world instantly returned to the power dynamic of the 1920s where the Soviet Union was regarded as the greatest threat to the rest of Europe. The fact is that a world-encompassing United Nations could not be constructed in 1945—it was an impossibility.
Knocking Putin down is now beyond Europe - and probably the US too. They've not got the industrial capacity now. Worse still the EU is allowing what it has to be cannibalised by the US who have their own energy resources whilst the EU have cut themselves off from theirs. It's minimal energy alright - it's much easier for our transnational Elites to Davos-network , fear-monger and grandstand than it is to take positve steps to improve the lives of their respective populations.
Neoliberalist and the restrictions of the Euro have deinstrustrialised much of the periphery and now the (still a complete mystery) Nordstream explosions have taken care of the Germans. It's over - it's just too much effort to fix.
Phiilliosy, your Postscript is shocking and demoralising. Is it truly that bad? No signs of EU states attempting attempting to rally or speak with one voice?
Well, thats an interesting name! I had little hope. Will explain more in another piece.
Thank you! Very interesting!
Could you also elaborate on:
> "What is has shown more than anything is the almost total triumph of MAGA for now—even in Europe and around the world."?
What shows that? The general feeling of Europe's unwillingness to reform and instead a desire to please Trump?
Im preparing a piece on this--it was striking.
My question as well...
its coming
Russia claims that articles 106 and 107 of the UN Charter authorize its invasion of Ukraine.
Of course they do--though the contravention of article 2 is so blatant that the latter is comical. Of course they can get away with it because of the security council.
I once made a detour and drove through Davos (in summer) just out of curiousity.
My first time--what was striking is it might be the least attractive Swiss town Ive seen. Switzerland is full of pretty, old towns--Davos in comparison in ugly.
I was not impressed either. By the town, I mean - not mountains. That was basically at the end of my big drive through Switzerland visiting all cities with population over 30,000. Davos ain't Luzern or Basel.
Not at all--most Austrian alp towns would put it in the shade as well. Shows how marketing can be transformative.
Once again we hear in the news that Ukraine is on the way to lose the war:
Ukraine Is Losing Fewer Soldiers Than Russia — but It’s Still Losing the War https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/world/europe/ukraine-russia-soldiers-loss.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
Oberst Reiner, who has quite an audience in German-speaking countries, also paints a very negative view of Ukraine's prospects:
https://www.youtube.com/live/k3Jt9t35AqQ?feature=shared
He starts sharing his analysis at 18:00. He says he is in contact with Ukrainian soldiers. It's possible to turn English subtitles on. Why is it that you and Mykola always have a much positive view of Ukraine's chances as most other observers?
There is a legal case to be made that Russia shouldn't even be on the security council. It is not the Soviet union and has little real claim to be its automatic successor. It's debatable how you can throw them out at this point but a majority vote of the General Assembly to toss them would be a good start.
"The recent revelations that the Biden Administration never really wanted Ukraine to win the war, and as such deliberately limited arms to Ukraine in such a way that it would stretch the war out and cause massive Ukrainian casualties, teaches us much of what we need to know about being “fair”."
This may be your interpretation of the facts but where is the revelation that it is the case? Has some document been released which shows that this was the motivation of the Biden Administration all along?
You will be more credible if you stick to verified facts.
https://time.com/7207661/bidens-ukraine-win-zelensky-loss/# maybe this article is what is being referred to.
There is nothing in that which supports Phillips' outrageous claim that the Biden Administration deliberately sought to "stretch the war out and cause massive Ukrainian casualties".
It is in no way outrageous--here was how David Ignatius described the administration's strategy in the piece which praised Jake sullivan for being a genius. Ukraine had to pay the "butcher's bill" to attrit Russia.
"It was a sensible, cold-blooded strategy for the United States — to attrit an adversary at low cost to America, while Ukraine was paying the butcher’s bill. That’s not how Sullivan would have described it, but this was the practical effect. Kissinger would have approved."
You can read more in this piece. Im sorry--the Biden administration never helped Ukraine to win--but favored this strategy that dragged out the war and caused massive Ukrainian casualties.
https://open.substack.com/pub/phillipspobrien/p/history-wins-out-in-the-end?r=1tgexa&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
There is a difference between saying that Biden's strategy resulted in dragging out the war and massive Ukrainian casualties, and saying that was his intention all along. You will be more credible in advocating further US assistance to Ukraine if you stick to verifiable facts.
His intention all along was not to have Ukraine achieve victory. That was made very clear in that Time Story. As such he never armed Ukraine to win, and this ended up transforming the war into what we have seen. Ukraine paid the butchers bill because the administration did not want them to win.
I see it close to the same based on the actions of the US. We absolutely armed and supplied them human resources and intelligence to push Russia back into the eastern fifth of Ukraine, without ever stating that was the goal publicly. After that we down shifted which resulted in the deaths of Ukrainian civilians, soldiers and Russian soldiers caught in this war. We enjoyed expanded markets for our petroleum, expanded NATO, reported US deaths have all be volunteers, minimal expansion of defense spending, while direct monetary aid packages have been non-trivial. Any cost benefit analysis would say the US has done very well off of the backs of many deaths, casualties and human suffering in Ukraine/Russia. That was the result, the expected result, the planned result from Biden’s actions.
Great post Phil. I’m happy for you and understand why you were invited to Davos. But I mustn’t dare tell my brother. That would set him off on a 15 minute rant about the WEF being an elitist, globalist cabal trying to gaslight the world into being a post-nationalist, post-industrialist, enviro state. I disagree with him.
After reading all the comments here the one that I agree with the most with me is Kathleen Weber’s comment about the Principle of Least Effort.
Yep, the whole war response has been driven by least effort and least short term risk. With exception of the actions of countries bordering Russia who are appropriately alarmed.
I don't see the stagnation changing in 2025. The lure of Trump somehow pulling a bitter peace out a hat offers another excuse to delay hard choices.
Many thanks for this view from Davos. Having once observed the proceedings close-up (and participated from the comfort of my interpreter's booth !) I far prefer your detailed response here to what was certainly the shorter version in the panel discussion under the watchful eye of the moderator and the tyranny of the clock !
I thoroughly agree with your dismissal of the UN, a vast burocracy that has become, unfortunately, worse than useless. Many years ago, De Gaulle, never one to observe diplomatic niceties when it suited him, referred to it scornfully as "the thing" ( "le machin" in French).
Just a quick point about Europe. I don't think it's helpful to say, as many here do , that "Europe will...." "Europe can't...."or "Europe won't....." What is holding "Europe" back at the moment is that whatever stance it eventually takes (or not) will be in a configuration of which the contours are not yet clear to European leaders themselves, let alone the rest of us. The EU minus a few Putin supporters but plus Norway and the UK - and it can only take shape once Trump has made his own position clear. It's early days yet, but hopefully "Europe" will act before it's too late for Ukraine.
Thanks a lot Phillips for your 2 posts from Davos, illuminating yet sombre…
Made me feel like our appeal “It’s Europe’s time: Let’s not betray Ukraine!”is even more relevant than when it first came out a month or so ago.
If you have time to look at your (probably vey full) emailbox, you’ll find an email from me, with an updated and shortened version that might be considered fit for publication in a British media we contacted - and with a question for you😅.
So many people in power are pathetic weaklings. Trying to curry favor with Trump is... well, at best it'll get you a short-term benefit. This will probably work for Zelensky and Ukraine, which only need a short-term benefit.
But it won't work for France or Germany, who are looking for longer-term things. Because Trump has zero loyalty and will abandon his oldest allies in 10 seconds (he's proven this). And sucking up to Trump makes it *less* likely that you'll get support from a subsequent post-Trump US administration. So it's just stupid.
It’s a bit rich to set the Article 2 breakage clock to zero at 2022. The West and NATO have been dumping all over it for decades with either direct shock-and-awe slaughter or murderous economic siege.
That the ‘old order’ seems like collapsing now is due to it being relentlessly undermined since the 1990s and that the worms now have the economic and military might to turn.
If you’re going to talk about old bureaucracies that are past their sell-by date, then you’ve got to include NATO in your discussion. It’s weapons, tactics and industrial base are being shown to be massively wanting – from artillery shell production to 6th Generation fighters, they’re unable to compete. Worse still, the US’s growth strategy of the last decade has been to cannibalise their vassals – the election of Trump just makes this explicit.
And as for why the EU needs Ukraine, you’ve really got to spell that out to us. Aside from in the usual Davos asset stripping, cheap labour sense I can’t see any reason. Spell it out for us in the cheap-seats Professor.
90s? 80s. It's been undermined since Ronald Reagan at least.