Ukraine and the Trump-Putin axis of reaction
First published at Labour Hub.
The Trump–Putin Axis is having profound implications not only for Ukraine but for the global order as well. The fact that neither a ceasefire nor peace has been realised is hardly surprising. The primary objective here is not the safeguarding of Ukrainian lives but rather fostering a rapprochement between the United States and Russia.
This was illustrated on 2nd April, when President Trump imposed sweeping tariffs that impacted Ukraine and even targeted already sanctioned Syria — yet Russia and its supplier North Korea were conspicuously absent from the list. This new alignment, far from a sudden development, was foreshadowed even before Trump took office on 20th January. Notably, during the summer of 2023, Republicans blocked a critical nine‐month aid package to Ukraine for nine months.
The ideological underpinnings of the axis
The Trump’s team and the MAGA movement has long been permeated by figures who have done business with and are sympathetic to Russia. But this rapprochement of the rival oligarchies goes deeper: the US reactionary right considers key features of Putin’s Russia — national chauvinism, white supremacy, staunch Christian conservatism and the fascistic theories of Alexandr Dugin, which promote a view of sovereignty defined by dominance, as its own shared ideology.
There are historical precedents for such unlikely partnerships. China, for instance, curtailed and eventually ended its aid to North Vietnam to foster better relations with the United States, prolonging the Vietnam War. The closest antecedent is the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact — a non-aggression treaty between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Soviet Union. Although Trump and Putin are not identical to the tyrants of that era — and we are not on the brink of another world war — the similar scale of the retrogression in global politics and ideological consequences is stark.
In much the same way that the Communists and others on the left supported the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (blaming France and Britain as responsible for the war, rather than Hitler), today sections of the labour movement — opponents of Ukraine’s struggle for freedom — find themselves now aligned with the MAGA Republicans.
Such convergence underscores a critical lesson: we cannot separate domestic anti-fascism from international anti-fascism. Ukraine’s fight for freedom is intrinsically linked to the global battle against reactionary forces — a connection underscored by the displays of support for Ukraine at anti-Trump protests in the United States.
Hypocritical outrage and Ukraine’s vulnerability
After three years of war, Ukraine’s vulnerability is the product of both external and internal failures. Western powers — the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France — have faltered on multiple fronts. Their moral outrage over apparent American duplicity rings hollow when contrasted with their response to Europe’s worst conflict since World War II. As Russian troops gathered along Ukraine’s border, these powers did little to deter the looming full-scale invasion. They failed to impose significant sanctions on Russia and failed to provide Ukraine with critical military aid. Even the sanctions that were imposed — particularly on Russian oil exports — were insufficient, enabling billions of dollars per month in revenue to continue fuelling Putin’s war machine.
The strategy of supporting Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes,’ rather than equipping it with the means to decisively end the occupation, has only prolonged the conflict.
These are not the only causes for Ukraine’s current vulnerability. The Ukrainian government has failed to fully mobilize the economy for the war effort and ensure the welfare of the people — challenges made starker by a contrast with Russia’s transformation into a war economy with defence spending at levels unseen since the Cold War.
The obstruction to economic reform has been a combination of the self-interest of Ukrainian capitalists, free-market zealots in Ministries and the role of global capital.
There is an additional contributory factor to Ukraine’s current predicament, which is the response of the European (and North American) labour movement to the Russian invasion. While most of the labour movement has formally opposed the invasion, there has been a restraint to the point of silence in advocacy for the necessary aid to defeat Russia.
The evolution of Moscow’s oligarchy into a fascist dictatorship and an incipient fascist oligarchy in Washington have combined not only to the detriment of Ukraine but to threaten democracy more widely by fuelling fascist and authoritarian forces globally.
Ukraine is on the frontline of the battle for democracy but not only for the freedom of Ukrainians; their fate is intimately linked to fight against this new global reaction.
The global realignment
The global realignment of USA has seen a combination of accommodation, with Russia and increased deterrence as regards China. There are several possible outcomes to this process. A rapprochement with Russia could continue without any viable peace in Ukraine, as historian Timothy Snyder has argued: “So far, it’s a war-mongering process. American policy under Trump has been thus far to make the war easier for Russia and harder for Ukraine.”
The axis began forming in earnest on 12th February, when Trump called Putin to ‘reset’ relations and reopen dialogue on ‘topics of mutual interest.’ From the outset, Ukraine — and Europe — were relegated to the periphery of these strategic discussions, with Russia facing no equivalent pressure to concede anything beneficial for Ukraine, or even a suspension any hostilities.
Later, at a NATO meeting in Brussels on 12th February, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth declared it “unrealistic” to expect Ukraine to revert to its pre-2014 borders. With NATO membership effectively ruled out, Hegseth insisted that U.S. policy would prioritise American interests, as encapsulated by Trump’s unilateral decision-making. This was further evidenced at the Riyadh Summit on 18th February, where US Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov alongside Trump’s envoy Steven Witkoff and Russian sovereign wealth fund chief Kirill Dmitriev. Their agenda centred on a return to business as usual—normalising diplomatic relations, beginning work on a Ukrainian peace settlement, and spanning the possibility of enhanced economic cooperation.
The Summit was followed sharply by Trump propagating disinformation — falsely claiming that Ukraine had initiated the war and refusing to label Russia the aggressor. On 24th February at the United Nations, the US voted with Russia, China, and other allies against a resolution condemning the invasion. Soon after, the Trump administration disbanded task forces that combated Russian disinformation, tracked sanctions evasion by oligarchs and investigated Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Offensive cyber operations against Russia were suspended, and US forces in Poland, engaged in supplying aid to Ukraine, were reduced.
Coercing Ukraine: A transactional agenda
Having set the scene for betrayal, Trump’s administration embarked on what it described as “dividing up certain assets.” According to this transactional approach, Russia would retain its occupied Ukrainian territories, sanctions would eventually be lifted, and remaining unoccupied Ukraine would be relegated to a neo-colonial status. Under these conditions, Ukraine was compelled to repay $500 billion — four times the aid disbursed under the Biden administration — by surrendering 50% of its national resource proceeds (such as from mining). Moreover, Ukraine would have to repay twice the amount of any future US aid, effectively imposing a 100% interest rate.
When Ukraine demanded security guarantees to shield itself from renewed Russian aggression, Trump dismissed these as Europe’s responsibility. The White House made clear that, should Ukraine wish to meet with Trump on 28th February, acceptance of the controversial mineral deal was mandatory. This pressure reached a climax when Trump and Vice President JD Vance launched an orchestrated attack on President Zelensky in the Oval Office — a confrontation that culminated in Zelensky being asked to leave the White House.
These actions demonstrate that Washington’s primary objective is rapprochement with Russia, with ending the current phase of the war merely a means to that end. To compel Ukraine to accede to Trump’s conditions, Washington resorted to both coercion and delegitimization of Zelensky. On 3rd March, Trump suspended all military aid to Ukraine. Two days later, intelligence sharing — vital for early warning of enemy air attacks and battlefield operations — was also halted. Around the same time, Elon Musk threatened to suspend Ukraine’s Starlink satellite system. In response, Russia launched over 80 missiles and 1,550 attack drones on Ukraine.
Concurrently, a campaign emerged to undermine President Zelensky’s legitimacy. Trump labelled him “a dictator without elections.” Figures like Tulsi Gabbard and the Director of National Intelligence falsely claimed that Kyiv had cancelled elections and silenced its opposition, while Musk urged Zelensky to leave Ukraine to escape corruption charges. These narratives mirror Kremlin demands for regime change, even as senior members of Trump’s administration engaged in secret talks with Ukrainian political opponents like Yulia Tymoshenko and leaders from Petro Poroshenko’s party.
Directly, these US actions helped Russia mount a counter-offensive that reversed Ukrainian gains in the Kursk region. Under intense pressure, Zelensky indicated that Ukraine was ready to sign a deal with the US regarding its mineral deposits, and following talks in Saudi Arabia on 11th March, Ukraine agreed to Trump’s ceasefire proposal.
Confident that Washington would not retaliate, after an 18th March call between Trump and Putin, the Kremlin did not reciprocate but agreed to refrain from attacking Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Following further talks in Riyadh on March 25th, the White House announced an agreement promising “safe navigation” in the Black Sea — but only on the condition that sanctions on Russia financial institutions were lifted.
Throughout this period, Russia has maintained maximalist demands to secure Ukrainian territory and continued bombing Ukrainian civilian areas. On 2nd April, Putin signed a decree conscripting 160,000 new soldiers, clearly preparing for another offensive.
Meanwhile, Washington did nothing to pressure Moscow further — indeed just as Trump was imposing widescale trade tariffs, travel sanctions were lifted on Putin’s advisor and money man, Dmitriev, to travel to Washington. On the agenda was the restoration of Russian-American relations, and to work to restore business relations. On 10th April in Istanbul, US-Russia talks proceeded under the banner of “normalising broader relations,” with Ukraine conspicuously absent from the agenda.
With no ceasefire in sight, Trump revised the terms of an agreement that would grant the U.S. dominance over Ukraine’s critical minerals and energy assets. The new terms, which resembled economic colonialism, required Ukraine to repay prior US assistance at 4% interest, contribute royalties from its natural resources, and accept that the US would retain majority control over the fund’s board while freely withdrawing profits — whereas Ukraine would have no such control. Trump further backed these draconian measures with explicit threats against any attempt by Ukraine to renegotiate the deal.
In essence, without any meaningful pressure imposed on Putin, this coercion has served primarily to tip the balance of power on the battlefield — effectively weakening Ukraine’s position between the two powers. Such conduct suggests that it is entirely feasible for Trump to eventually broker a deal with Russia that would neither bring about a genuine ceasefire nor lead to a sustainable peace — a prospect now openly discussed by some MAGA commentators.
The dual crisis of capital and labour
Trump’s rapprochement with Russia — and the broader US pivot toward the Asia-Pacific — has thrown Europe into uncertainty, upending long-held assumptions about the transatlantic alliance. European powers have reluctantly acquiesced to US demands for increased defence spending. This deference is driven by both a desire to maintain US oversight and a fear of abandonment of mutual defence commitments by Trump.
Europe now faces the dual challenge of a nominal ally in Washington that is simultaneously imposing tariffs and undermining liberal democracy alongside Moscow, with key MAGA Republicans openly supporting the far right in Europe.
Despite these challenges, Europe has not envisioned rallying to provide an alternative to US aid to Ukraine. To counter Russian imperialism effectively, European aid would then need to increase from the current 44 billion euros per year to 82 billion euros, a modest sum compared to the over 800 billion euros allocated to the ReArm Europe Plan.
Instead, of empowering Ukraine to have freedom of choice autonomously of Trump and Putin, initiatives from the UK and France have focused on forming an ethereal “coalition of the willing” tasked with assembling a “reassurance force” to be deployed far behind demarcation lines once any deal is imposed. Russia has already rejected such a force as “completely unacceptable,” and President Zelensky has dismissed its projected numbers as ineffective. Rather than sabotaging a peace settlement, as some critics like Andrew Murray of Stop the War have claimed, these measures propose to underpin a Trump-Putin partition plan that would leave Russian occupation intact.
The stakes for democracy
The Ukrainian question is pivotal to global politics. If Trump and Putin succeed in undermining Ukraine’s struggle for freedom, the result will not be sustainable peace; rather, Russian imperialism will merely pause to recuperate and regroup before resuming its real objective of asserting dominance over Ukraine. Such an outcome would embolden reactionary forces worldwide, reshaping the global landscape into fragmented regional capitalist power blocs driven purely by naked self-interest.
To respond with some form of radical abstentionism in the face of the Trump’s rapprochement with Putin is to become complicit in the betrayal of Ukraine and of resistance to the incipient fascism in the USA.
For the labour movement — in Europe, the United States, and beyond — a de facto victory for Putin’s Russia at the behest of Trump would be disastrous. Yet, so far, neither the European nor US labour movement has yet to project its own independent alternative to what is being offered by the Trump-Putin Axis. This is an urgent necessity.
The Ukraine Solidarity Campaign has, with allies, has made a modest contribution, with our a Plan for an Alternative to Russian Occupation of viable measures to oppose the imposition of an unjust peace that cements Russia’s occupation of Ukraine, raising with renewed meaning for today the old slogan of “Neither Washington nor Moscow”, but a free, democratic and united Ukraine.
Christopher Ford is Secretary of the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign. This article is based on a talk he gave to the Solidarity with Ukraine Conference, held in Brussels last month.