From Middle East to Ukraine: US imperialism in the Trump era

The following is the second of a three-part serialisation of a speech on world perspectives, given on Tuesday 28 January at a meeting of the International Executive Committee of the Revolutionary Communist International. The first part, which can be read here, looks at the upheaval in world relations, which has been caused by Trump’s presidency.

Even before he came into office, Trump had managed to get a ceasefire deal in Gaza. Biden did not manage to do that. This has many important implications.

The first is that this is quite unprecedented, because the person who strong-armed Netanyahu into signing the deal – Trump’s envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff – is a businessman. He also comes from real estate, like Trump himself, and at the time he was dashing around the Middle East, he was a private citizen. He didn't have any official position. Trump was not yet in office. Yet he was the one who twisted Netanyahu’s arm and forced him to sign the ceasefire deal.

This very same ceasefire deal had been on the table since, at the very least, May last year. Hamas had already accepted it in July 2024. Biden was pushing for it, but Netanyahu started inventing all sorts of excuses and pretexts to sabotage the deal.

One of his main excuses was that Israel had to keep control of the Philadelphi corridor, which is a narrow strip of land that separates Gaza from Egypt. Netanyahu insisted, in July last year, and then in September last year, that this was a crucial question for Israeli national security. The IDF could not under any circumstances withdraw from it, as otherwise Hamas would be able to cross into Egypt, back and forth, and use it as their supply line.

The deal says precisely the opposite. The IDF is withdrawing from the Philadelphi corridor, and also from the Netzarim corridor, carved out by the IDF to split the Gaza strip down the middle. That gives you an indication that all of Netanyahu’s protestations and sabotage had nothing to do with the hostages, nor with serious questions of national security, but rather with keeping the war going so he could stay in power.

Negotiations about the ceasefire had resumed in December, but as the date of Trump’s inauguration was coming closer it was clear that they were about to collapse. Trump had said, “I want a deal before my inauguration”. What happened at that point? The Israeli liberal Zionist paper Haaretz described it as follows:

Witkoff was in Doha, where these negotiations were taking place, and at a certain point he realised that the Israeli negotiators were just wasting time, that they had neither the intention, nor the authority, to sign anything or agree to anything.

Witkoff must have banged the table and managed to get Netanyahu to sign this deal / Image: public domain

So Witkoff called Netanyahu's office and said, “I want a meeting with you tomorrow, Saturday”. Netanyahu’s office tried to delay the whole process, arguing that it was not possible to meet on Saturday as it was the Sabbath, that the meeting would have to be postponed, etc.

According to Haaretz, Steve Witkoff gave a “salty” reply, making it clear that he didn’t care if it was the Sabbath – the Jewish day of rest – and that the meeting was going to take place regardless. We do not know what happened in that meeting, but Witkoff must have banged the table and managed to get Netanyahu to sign this deal.

The signing of the ceasefire left Biden completely exposed. It has become clear that the US certainly had the power to put pressure on Netanyahu to change his policy. Biden’s policy of full support for Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza did not give Washington any leverage on Netanyahu, but rather, the other way around.

The ceasefire deal has led to a major crisis in Israel, or rather, the acceleration of the political crisis in Israel. One of the two far-right parties which are part of Netanyahu's coalition has left the government, and the other one has threatened to leave.

A few months ago, Netanyahu brought another party into the coalition, Gideon Sa’ar’s party, so that he is not so dependent on the support of Smotrich and Ben Gvir, the leaders of the two far-right parties.

The ceasefire has also even more clearly exposed that one of Netanyahu’s main interests throughout the war was to keep the conflict going and even escalate it, so that he could remain in power. His own personal political survival played a major role. This is one of the reasons that he now is attempting to provoke an open war in the West Bank.

A ceasefire deal is not in his interest and therefore it is not certain that this ceasefire deal will hold. Netanyahu has also said publicly that he has received guarantees from Biden and Trump that after the first phase of this ceasefire he can resume the war on Gaza.

In the last few days, there was almost a breakdown of the Lebanon ceasefire. Trump's administration intervened again to make sure that it didn't break down completely.

It is clear in any case that the ceasefire deal cannot be described as a victory for Israel. It has not achieved any of its war aims, which were to release the hostages by military force and to destroy Hamas.

Israel’s military is one of the most powerful – if not the most powerful – in the Middle East, with access to very advanced technology, intelligence sources, high-tech weapons, low-tech weapons, extensive supplies of artillery and so on. Nevertheless, the IDF has not been able to rescue the hostages and, more importantly, it has not been able to smash Hamas, which was the real war aim.

According to some US intelligence reports in the last few days, Hamas has recruited 15,000 new members since the start of the war, which is more or less the same amount of people that the Israelis say they have killed. Obviously, though, these people will not be trained or integrated into the military structures to the same degree as those killed by Israel. Hamas has clearly been weakened by this, but it has certainly not been destroyed yet.

What have we seen in the last few days? What happened as soon as the IDF withdrew? Hamas’ structures have taken over. Yesterday, in the main square in Gaza City, you had Hamas police officers all over the place, in nice clean uniforms, setting up a stage for the hostages which were to be released, with large numbers of armed men very demonstratively showing that they are still in control. This was in the main square in Gaza City, the place that the IDF had gone over with a fine-tooth comb in order to make sure Hamas was nowhere to be found.

This is quite extraordinary. Hamas fighters have spent months underground in tunnels. They cut off all their communications amongst themselves for fear of being intercepted. And now they come out, having recruited thousands of new members, and they control the Gaza Strip again.

This whole series of events: the 7 October Hamas attack; the failure of Israel's campaign in Gaza; Netanyahu’s cynical attitude towards the hostages: sooner or later all of these things must have an impact on the consciousness of Israeli working class people.

For decades, the Zionist ruling class has rallied the Israeli population around its policies with the argument that the only way to guarantee the safety and livelihood of Jews in Israel is through a strong state that defeats all its enemies. The myth of its invincibility has now been broken. The idea must eventually gain ground that there can be no way to peace as long as the national aspirations of the Palestinian people are unresolved.

It is worth asking: what is Trump's policy for the Middle East?

[Note: this speech was given two weeks before Netanyahu’s visit to the White House and Trump’s announcement of his plan for the US to take over Gaza]

It seems to me that what he wants is a ceasefire deal which would then lead to the resumption of the Abraham Accords, that is, the normalisation of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. In his social media post claiming responsibility for the agreement, he mentioned the Abraham Accords and the fact that Gaza should not be a “haven for terrorists” anymore.

Trump's practical, business-like approach to politics is not likely to work in the Middle East, or anywhere else, for that matter / Image: Gage Skidmore, Flickr

As far as I can tell he probably thinks that if they manage to create economic growth in the region, all of the problems will be solved and everyone will be happy.

This is not all he said. He is now asking, why don't we move all the people from Gaza to Jordan and Egypt? We can build houses for them in a place where they can live in peace.

In his mind this makes sense. Gaza has been completely destroyed. It will take years to rebuild it, to clear the rubble, to build new homes and infrastructure. We're talking about decades of reconstruction that will cost a lot of money. He's essentially thinking: “why doesn't someone else pay for this?”

And at the same time, he is probably thinking, “This way I can keep the Zionist far-right happy. They want to clear the Palestinians from Gaza. So let's give them that as well.” He might want to get the Saudis and Gulf States to put up the money. You can already see the outlines of such a plan.

However, Trump's practical, business-like approach to politics is not likely to work in the Middle East, or anywhere else, for that matter.

I do not think Saudi Arabia can agree to a normalisation deal with Israel as long as there is not some sort of Palestinian state, even if that is just a toothless statelet. Not because the Saudi rulers care about the national aspirations of the Palestinians, but because they are worried about being overthrown if they are seen as having sold the Palestinians out in an even clearer manner.

In addition, if you want to have a Palestinian state, how are you going to achieve that in the present circumstances without Hamas being in control of Gaza? The Israelis just tried for 15 months to get rid of Hamas with a brutal campaign, and they have not been able to achieve it. This is really an intractable problem within the limits of capitalist solutions. That's the only conclusion you can draw from it. And the situation will get more complicated for Trump as time goes by.

The collapse of the Assad regime

I want to speak briefly about Syria, because this is another major event that's happened in the last few weeks in a very surprising and sudden manner.

We have already analysed the fall of the Assad regime in a number of articles. This was part of the general world situation that we described earlier. Russia was otherwise engaged in Ukraine; Iran had been weakened in Lebanon by Israel’s campaign.

Turkey had a partnership of sorts with Russia that was hammered out in the course of the setbacks suffered by Turkey, in the first phase of the Syrian Civil War. But Turkey and Russia are not really allies. So, looking at the relative weakening of other powers which were backing Assad, Turkey decided that it was going to make a move.

They started by putting pressure on Assad to reach some sort of deal, which would involve increased control by Turkish proxies in Syria, allowing the return of large numbers of Syrian refugees who are currently in Turkey.

Assad, for some reason, decided not to make a deal. He was also in talks with other countries, including the Qataris, and he was under pressure from the Israelis. He did not want to make a deal with Erdogan.

As a result, Turkey pushed him, and as soon as they started pushing, the whole edifice collapsed. The Assad regime was so rotten, that there was nothing left.

The Assad regime was so rotten, that there was nothing left / Image: Kremlin.ru, Wikimedia Commons

Sometimes you have a wooden wardrobe that has been eaten by termites. You cannot see the damage from the outside, but one day you go and open the door and the whole thing collapses.

The situation that has emerged after the collapse of the Assad regime is one in which Turkey is much more predominant but still does not control the whole country. What we see is the carving up of Syria between different regional powers.

Israel has taken advantage of this, in order to increase the territory it controls in the South, next to the Golan Heights, overlooking southern Lebanon. Turkey controls the North, the North-West and the capital, Damascus. The Druze control the southern corner. The Kurds control the North East, but their position is very fragile.

There is a lesson here. The Kurds in Syria threw in their lot with US imperialism and now they are wholly dependent on the support of US imperialism for their survival. This is why the leader of the Kurdish People’s Defence Units (YPG) just sent a grovelling letter to Trump, effectively saying: “We can be friends. We are the best defenders of your interests in this region”.

In a comradely manner, we should discuss this lesson with those anarchists and leftists in the West, who had a completely uncritical attitude towards Rojava. At the end of the day, the rights of small nations are just loose change in the machinations of the big powers.

The war in Ukraine

Then we come to the war in Ukraine. I think the war in Ukraine is lost to the West and is lost to NATO. I think that there's no way they can turn the tide of this war. Russia is advancing all along the front line, and the rate of advance is accelerating.

At every single juncture of this war, the attempt of the US to provide ‘wonder weapons’ that would change the course of the war has completely failed. First, we had Leopard tanks, then we had the HIMARS, then we had the F16s, then we had the ATACMS missiles. More recently, permission was granted to use ATACMS missiles to strike targets inside Russian territory. Every single time this has failed to turn the war around.

The decisive factor currently is Russia's superiority in manpower and the inability of Ukraine to recruit more men for the front.

There are other factors involved, of course, such as the depletion of the stocks of armament in the West, and the limits of western military industry to continue to supply Ukraine, as compared to the ability of the Russian military industry to supply its own troops.

Incidentally, there is an interesting point to be made in relation to this question. A few months ago when the West was holding discussions with military contractors, the heads of the arms industries were saying: “Yes, we can produce more. We can invest in new plants so that we can produce more shells and military equipment, but only if you give us a long-term contract. If it is just a question of ramping up production for the next six months, we are not going to invest massively in fixed capital that we are not sure we are going to be able to use later on.” That’s how capitalist investment works.

This is not the case in Russia, where the state now has an interventionist policy in the economy, to make sure they win the war. The state says these factories are going to be working 24/7 and they are going to deliver the necessary material for the military. Whether these factories are state owned or privately owned, they are now under the control of the state.

This is one example that demonstrates that state planning, in one way or another, is much superior to the anarchy of the free market economy, even when it comes to provisioning weapons for the war.

This is a point that Ted Grant made during World War II. At that time, Britain established industry boards through which the factories and the private owners of capital were told, “you must produce this by such a date and in such an amount”. This was effectively a form of state planning. When it comes to important things, the capitalists themselves do not leave it to the free market.

The crucial factor is the inability of Ukraine to recruit enough men to fight / Image: public domain

The idea that western sanctions were going to damage the Russian economy to a point where they would prevent or hinder the war effort, has been demonstrated to be completely false. The Russian economy is growing and it's producing enough to sustain this war.

When all these other factors are taken into account, the crucial factor is the inability of Ukraine to recruit enough men to fight. This has been the case for months now. Some information has filtered into articles in the western media, but the real situation is completely disastrous.

Many people did volunteer to fight at the beginning of the war. At that time, it was seen as a war of national defence and there was a wave of patriotism. These people have been in the front for years now without any rotation. They are completely exhausted. But at least these are trained and battle-hardened troops that know a little bit about how to fight.

But what you have now is increasingly authoritarian and violent ways in which the state is attempting to draft a whole number of other people into the army by force through the recruitment and mobilisation service, TCC. Recently there was a scandal in the Ukrainian parliament where a member of parliament from Zelensky’s ruling party said: “This cannot go on anymore, the recruitment officers in Kharkiv, they act like an occupation army, including the setting up of filtration checkpoints.” They look for military-age men, they bundle them into vans and send them straight to the front. They are being kidnapped, against their will.

This has generated resistance and backlash. For months now, recruitment officers have been using unmarked vans, because the only way they can catch people is by surprise.

There was an interview in the Daily Telegraph in Britain about a day in the life of a Ukrainian recruitment officer. At the end of the article they asked him, “Why do you do this?” He said: “I believe it’s better to work for TCC than to hide from it.” His only motivation is that it is better to be chasing people than to be chased! Being a recruitment officer at least means that he is not at the front where he would almost certainly die. This is the real mood that exists now in Ukraine.

Another example: Zelensky – in his inimitable style in which everything he does is subordinated to the needs of public relations for keeping the West onside – decided that eight new brigades were going to be formed. They would be trained by the West to the best NATO standards.

One of those was the 155th Mechanised Brigade. There are 3,500 men in a brigade. They were sent to France for top-quality training. This was also a propaganda move by Macron, who as we know is facing plenty of difficulties at home and wanted to appear as a strongman.

The 155th Brigade was trained and then returned to Ukraine, where it was sent to the front at Pokrovsk, one of the hottest areas of the front line, which the Russians have been progressively encircling for months. What happened? The brigade melted away before it fired its first shot. Some 1,700 men deserted, going absent without leave. Some 50 of them had already deserted in France.

This was described by a Ukrainian journalist, Yuriy Butusov. He is certainly not pro-Russian. He published a long report saying that the situation in the army is complete madness. Similar points were made by a group of Ukrainian military analysts.

Zelensky doesn't want to hear the truth, so the generals around him don't tell him the truth about the real situation. When the commanders on the ground, who are supposed to report on any changes or problems in their sector, do not do so, it becomes impossible to plan anything.

Let’s say a unit is pushed back from the position they are holding. This is not reported up the chain of command for fear of them being disciplined. So there is no truthful information. The unit that's next to this one then thinks that the position is still a Ukrainian one. Then, all of a sudden, they are completely surrounded by Russian forces.

The total number of Ukrainian soldiers who have gone AWOL could be as high as 200,000! Over 90,000 have officially been charged with desertion since 2022, the vast majority of them in 2024, which means the rate is accelerating. These are people who one day decide they don't want to be on the front line anymore, and they leave, or they are given medical leave and they never come back to their units.

The latest scandal in Ukraine is that they are now sending specialists from the Air Force to the front as infantrymen. These are people who have been trained in the use of drones, in spotting incoming missiles and so on, for air defence. They are highly trained and specialised personnel who are now being taken out of the Air Force and sent to the front. From a military point of view this is a complete waste of skill.

It seems to me that this situation cannot go on for much longer. We are dialecticians. It is going to reach a point in which these small incremental losses might become a complete collapse of the front.

The demoralisation in the army – which is a reflection of demoralisation in society – has accelerated with the arrival of Trump to power. He has said he will put an end to the war in twenty-four hours, and that he will make a deal with Putin. What do you think is the impact of this in Ukraine for the political leadership, the military leadership, and for the men on the front?

Some reports in the western media about the opinion of the troops say that Ukrainian soldiers support Trump, as they want to put an end to the war. A former Ukrainian minister was quoted by Politico talking about Trump’s impact on the war: “It might not be good – but it will be much better than under Biden… [he] managed the war as a crisis – he thought if he holds out long enough, the storm will pass. But it’s not passing. Trump takes the perspective that we have to stop the storm. He’s not concerned about how it will be stopped.”

This is what Trump's tactic seems to be, to put an end to the war. It is not clear how he intends to achieve that or even if it will be possible for him to achieve it. What is clear is that if Trump were to say the United States is walking out of this war, which is what he is trying to achieve, then the war would be finished.

The current situation is one where the war has already been lost, but it has not concluded. If the US walks out, and stops the supply of military aid, weapons, supplies and so on, then it is finished.

A defeat for NATO in Ukraine will have a major impact on the world situation. This will not be like the time when the US was forced to leave Afghanistan, unable to defeat what is in effect a very backward country. We are talking here about a major proxy war between NATO and Russia.

Russia will come out of this war as the only imperialist power with an army that has been involved and tested in the methods of modern warfare. The war in Ukraine has served, as all wars do, as a testing ground for the most modern methods of warfare, the use of drones, the use of electronic warfare to counter them, new types of missiles, etc.

How will the Ukraine war end?

Can a deal be reached to put an end to the war? I will say that the only way a deal can be reached is on Putin’s terms. He is winning the war on the battlefield and the longer it goes on, the more territory he will win.

What are his terms? First of all, all the territory that he's taken, he will keep. He also wants a commitment written in stone that Ukraine will never join NATO and will remain a neutral country. That also involves a scaling down of the size of the Ukrainian army.

What Putin was saying in the run up to the war in December 2021 was: “We want a new security architecture in Europe.” What this means is: “We want Europe and the US to recognise that Russia is a power, and for them to stop meddling in our backyard and making aggressive moves against Russia”.

A defeat for NATO in Ukraine will have a major impact on the world situation / Image: President.gov.ua, Wikimedia Commons

In the discussions we had about the war in Ukraine when it began, some comrades argued that the West could not allow this war to be lost. They argued that, for the West, this war is an important question of prestige and that therefore, they would continue to supply weapons for as long as it took.

At that time I thought that the war in Ukraine would finish much earlier with a deal. I thought that the West would be prepared to recognise the real state of affairs much earlier. I think I argued that there would be a deal around autumn 2022. If you remember, a deal was being discussed in Turkey, but then Boris Johnson rushed to Kyiv and told them not to sign and that the West would support them “for as long as it takes”, until victory over Russia was achieved.

I was wrong and those comrades clearly had a point.

Against their best judgement, the West has continued to pile weapons into a war that, as was clear for a long time, could not be won. That was to a large extent for reasons of prestige. Having embarked on this war, the West cannot be seen to lose it. The mistake I made was to overestimate the capacity of western imperialism to act logically and rationally.

However, there are definite limits – financial, physical and political limits – to the ability of the West to continue to supply weapons. These limits have been reached to a large extent.

Regarding this question of prestige and the impact that the US losing face will have on world relations, perhaps Trump thinks he can get away with it because he can put the blame on Biden.

“This is not my war, this is not my humiliation, this is a mistake or even a crime committed by Biden. And we are walking away from this. Too many people have died already”. This is what he is saying.

Trump is also a narcissist. Some have said he wants the Nobel Peace Prize! This would not be out of character for the Nobel committee; they have given the Prize to a lot of unsavoury characters already.

So from Trump’s point of view, he probably thinks that if he were able to sit down with Putin, through his personal charm and personal relations, he would be able to arrive at a deal that's beneficial for everyone.

This was the content of Trump’s post on social media: “I like the Russians. The Russians helped us a lot in World War II. The Russian economy is in a bad state and I will be doing Putin a favour by reaching a deal.”

But obviously Putin is not an idiot. He is many things, but not an idiot. And he knows what the real situation is, regarding the Russian economy (which is booming) and the military situation.

Trump thinks that the war in Ukraine is a mistake, a waste of money and a waste of time, and he wants to put an end to it. But real life is more complicated than Trump’s intentions alone.

He certainly has a lot of leverage on Ukraine. Trump considers Zelensky a nuisance. He will want to embark in negotiations directly with Putin and then turn around to Zelensky and tell him, “You must accept this”.

It was reported that the head of Ukraine’s security service, Budanov, said in a closed meeting with parliamentary faction leaders and military leaders that unless they engage in serious negotiations, in six months time Ukraine would face “an existential threat”. Zelensky has also said that the ban on any negotiations with Putin, which he promoted months ago, does not apply to him and that he is prepared to sit at the table. It is clear that the Ukrainian government is being forced to recognise reality. They will try to get as much as they can from these negotiations, but they don't have much leverage.

What happens if the Europeans object to negotiations or to the terms of a potential deal? Trump will say, “Okay, well this is your war. You go ahead. We are walking out.” Europe is not in a position to continue the proxy war against Russia without the US, not from an economic, political or military point of view. These are the general outlines of the situation.

Trump tears up the imperialist rulebook

What does this all mean? There has been a major change in world relations. It is also a change in the way the United States acts.

The Economist published an editorial saying that the United States has now, “for the first time in over a century… an imperialist president”! I am sure a lot of people in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Chile, in Venezuela, and in Cuba are going to be surprised. Obviously, all US presidents have been imperialist for a long time. Well over a century, certainly.

But The Economist might be onto something, and it is the following. In the whole period since the end of World War II, or perhaps even before that, US imperialism maintained the pretense of acting on behalf of human rights, spreading democracy and the ‘rules-based order’, defending the ‘sacred principle of the inviolability of national borders’, and so on.

They were acting through ‘multilateral’ international institutions, which were apparently neutral, in which all countries had a say: the United Nations, the WTO, the IMF, and so on.

In reality, this was just a fig leaf. It was always a farce. Either the interests of US imperialism were expressed through these institutions, or they would ignore them completely.

The difference now is that Trump does not care at all for any of these pretences. He seems determined to tear up the whole rulebook and express things more openly, as they really are. When he says the Panama Canal and Greenland are part of US national security interests, he is expressing the point of view of the US ruling class, without any subterfuge.

 We will publish the third and final part of this transcript next week.