There is desperation and brilliance to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s proposal to provide Ukraine with post-war security by offering to cover it with the umbrella of NATO’s Article 5 Security guarantee, but not membership itself. It is loopy, because it would commit the US and Europe to precisely the risk of direct military engagement with Russia, a nuclear superpower, that they have been trying to avoid since Russian President Vladimir Putin sent troops into Georgia in 2008.
It seems as unlikely that US President Donald Trump would agree to such a move as former US president Joe Biden, who meticulously (and for Ukraine disastrously) drip fed the provision of arms to avoid an assessed nuclear escalation risk.
However, Meloni’s idea also has a kind of genius. She has thought this through at least as clearly as France and the UK, with their troubled proposal to put troops on the ground as behind-the-lines peacekeepers.
That is a hard to understand concept and faces a plethora of challenges, from a dearth of the airlift, troops and artillery needed sustain a war-fighting force big enough to deter Russia, to an over-dependence on the US for critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets. And that is if the Kremlin agreed and the US provided the necessary backstop should Russia decide to attack the peacekeepers. Neither seems likely.
PUTIN TEST
The cleverness of Meloni’s proposal lies in the way it would test to destruction Putin’s rationale for his invasion of a sovereign neighbor, one that so many in the West — including Trump — have swallowed whole. This is that Putin acted to counter a threat posed to Russia by NATO’s eastward expansion.
There is no question that Putin attacked Ukraine in significant part in response to NATO’s open-door policy — the alliance had not actually done any expanding toward Russia since 2004; subsequent additions were to the south, in the western Balkans, while Finland and Sweden joined only after the Ukraine invasion.
The important question — the one that Meloni’s proposal would test — is the nature of the threat Putin saw. Was it that Putin felt NATO would be able to use newly acquired bases to attack Russia? This is what Kremlin officials routinely say or imply, and NATO’s critics assume. Or was it because even the promise of NATO — and, equally, EU membership — threatened his plans to force those neighbors into a renewed sphere of control? This was the belief, born of centuries of experience with Russian domination and expansion, of the countries that began pounding on NATO’s door for admission as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed.
The evidence all points to the latter, as I have argued in detail here. Indeed, when Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, Ukraine’s constitution excluded joining any military alliance and NATO had stood by the terms of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act. This committed the alliance to not station nuclear weapons, bases or troops on the territories of its new members. It was not until 2017 that the first NATO soldiers moved to Poland, for example.
The net effect of the founding act was to grant new members the security they craved under NATO’s Article 5 collective defense pledge, but without provisions that Russia could legitimately consider provocative.
Meloni’s proposal for Ukraine would have the same result, but from the opposite starting point: non-membership. This would offer much clearer assurance to Moscow that it would not end up with NATO bases on another 1,974km of its land borders, in addition to the roughly 2,500km it already has. It is because all evidence points to the motive for Putin’s aggressive policies toward the Baltic states, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and others as a desire force them into his own NATO and EU sound-alikes — the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Union — that he would likely refuse Meloni’s proposal.
If his goal were peace and the security of Russia’s borders, rather than its expansion as a great power by force if necessary, he would surely accept.
CLARIFYING MOMENT
It is worth testing Meloni’s idea. Putin’s refusal could then provide a clarifying moment, putting into context his invasions of Ukraine, as well as demands such as Kyiv’s disarmament and NATO’s roll-back from all former Soviet-bloc nations. So, too, his latest proposal for regime change, which is to place all of Ukraine under transitional UN control, remove Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and “finish off” Ukraine’s armed forces.
That earned a public rebuke from Trump on Sunday. He told NBC he was “very angry” and threatened tough oil sanctions if Putin blew up US peacemaking efforts. This clarity could at the same time shine a useful light on those US efforts.
Despite Trump’s threats on Sunday, there has been a deep and cynical gulf between the new US administration’s stated goal of saving lives and ending an unwinnable war, and its actions. Those have been to cede most of Russia’s key demands, exclude Ukraine from the negotiation, and coerce Zelenskiy into granting the US control over all of his nation’s mineral resources and infrastructure in perpetuity.
As Bloomberg News reported on Saturday, Kyiv is now trying to secure less usurious terms, without causing a rift that leads to a further suspension of US military aid. If this clarity were all that adopting Meloni’s proposal achieved, it would be well worth the effort as we are drowning in Russian and now US disinformation. Under the guise of self-defense, Russia is engaged in a classic, colonial war of territorial expansion as it tries to regain control over a lost empire.
US EXPLOITATION
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is exploiting Kyiv’s moment of greatest dependency to impose a resource-extraction contract.
That deal was recently revised into a form worthy of Belgium’s 19th-century exploitation of what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, while offering Ukraine no security guarantees whatsoever. This is done in the name of helping Ukraine, yet the net effect of the deal would be to exclude Europe from Ukraine’s economic future and cripple its post-war reconstruction, while taking no responsibility for its defense.
Such is the untrammeled rule of the strong. The savage intent of both powers now pawing at Ukraine is worthy of the opening passages of Heart of Darkness, the novel Joseph Conrad set in the Belgian Congo.
“They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale,” says the narrator, Marlow, adding that conquest of the world “is not a pretty thing.”
Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS