By Nicholas Drummond
Trump’s strategic dilemma is does he use Russia to contain China at the expense of Europe and Ukraine or risk Russia being controlled by China?
Looking behind the extraordinary events of the last week, and leaving emotions out of the equation, Trump’s strategy is starting to become clear. He wants to peel Russia off China’s back. Russia by itself is a problem; but Russia under total Chinese control is a nightmare. When you view recent events through this lens, everything is logical.
If Trump’s fear of China is justified, then believing it is necessary for America to form an alliance with Russia is understandable. However, the cost of doing business with Putin could be Ukraine losing all the territory Russia has taken so far, the fracture of America’s relationship with Europe, and the disintegration of NATO. There’s also the problem that doing deals with the devil seldom works to your advantage. If Russia remains economically and militarily dependent on China, it is unclear whether the US could truly pull Moscow away from Beijing. Putin has historically sought to play major powers against one another, and there is no guarantee that realigning with Russia would weaken China’s global influence. So this may not be the zero sum game that Trump thinks it is.
As far as the UK is concerned, Trump viewing Russia as the lesser of two evils is literally our closest ally getting into bed with our biggest adversary. For us and our European neighbours, it would be a bitter pill to swallow. But what if China is planning its own land grab and this goes well beyond seizing Taiwan? What is certain is that there is far more happening behind the scenes than we currently know.
Many have argued that when the war in Ukraine is over, we will have to rehabilitate Russia as a European partner to hedge against a Chinese imperialist agenda. This makes sense. Trump just figures we need to do it now, not later. But it may be naive to think we can do business with Russia while Putin remains in charge. If we empower Russia by legitimising Putin’s aggression, he may become uncontrollable. That’s not just a risk; it’s an invitation to disaster.
If this interpretation of Trump’s strategy is correct, it explains why he views Europe’s weakness as making it irrelevant. If Europe wants to play a role in all this, then we need to buy into the game. The table stakes are hard power. This means the end of tokenism and re-establishing serious defence credentials. Europe must accelerate rearmament—not simply through rhetoric but by substantively rebuilding its military capabilities. This will require sustained strategic investment, including restoring a defence industrial base, deepening national resilience, achieving political cohesion, and a shift away from an over-reliance on the US for security.
We are entering a period of unprecedented uncertainty, instability, and strategic risk. There is every chance that Trump’s strategy could backfire spectacularly or that we will end up alone and responsible for our own defence in Europe. This gives us no choice but to accelerate the reconstitution of our armed forces while working out how we will operate in partnership with our neighbours, potentially without American support.
If Europe wishes to maintain its influence as a trading bloc, it may need to establish a new type of partnership—one based on security as well as trade. Britain, no longer a member of the EU, will need to rethink its role on the global stage. The UK could act as a bridge between Europe and America, but could it also be a bridge between America and China? While on the surface this may seem improbable given Britain’s alignment with US policy on China—such as AUKUS, Huawei bans, and criticism of China’s human rights record—Britain’s global financial networks, diplomatic reach, and historical relationships in Asia provide it with leverage.
London remains a crucial hub for Chinese investment, and Britain’s ability to engage in dialogue while maintaining a strong Atlanticist stance could position it as an intermediary in de-escalating tensions between Beijing and Washington. Whether this is a viable long-term role remains to be seen, but in an era of strategic realignments, it should not be dismissed outright.
Ultimately, aligning Britain’s foreign policy with its defence and security strategy is likely to require us to reassess and reimagine the ongoing Strategic Defence Review, even if much of its contents has already been finalised. While an increase in the UK defence budget from 2.3% of GDP to 2.5% was announced in late February, it will not take effect until 2027. This is too little too late. In reality, the budget needs to be increased to 2.5% with immediate effect with an increase to 3% as soon as possible.
Please note: Nothing in this article is an endorsement or criticism of Trump. It is simply an attempt to analyse his strategic intent and the implications of it.
UK Land Power 
The Chinese dominance of the SCS and eventually the Worlds oceans has not been hiding in plain sight as this issues has occupied the minds of militarists for sometime. The importance of the UK’s carriers could not be more prominent in the minds of the MOD planners, however, two such vessels is one too few as a carrier will need to be permanently stationed in the Far East within ten years. Without such a vessel any meaningful RN presence will be heavily compromised as an air component will be vital. Additional destroyers and frigates is a given if the UK is to have any clout in naval terms. An close alignment of Russia and China spells huge dangers for global stability and for Western land forces a significant increase in both troops and equipment. MBT fleets of just 148 proposed by the UK is ludicrously small as there is no meaningful evidence that the MBT is dead. Such nonsense has lead to a pathetic MBT fleet when one considers over 800 Chieftain were in service in the 60’s and 70’s. Drones and autonomous vehicles will dominate future battlefields as the recruitment incentives continue not to persuade modern youth to conscript. Britain needs to re-establish a heavy armour industry once more to support its national need and independence, if the structure of NATO is detuned to the point it loses its mutual rapid response triggers. The UK must be capable to mobilise without delay and not be caught between indecisive and decisive decision making partners especially within the EU. This can only be attained by being capable of manufacturing vital military supplies, just as we witnessed in both World Wars. By 2030 the UK will need something close to 3.5% of GDP if it has to strengthen its Far Eastern commitments and realistically balance the land forces and air force ratios. A Russian/Chinese military pact will deliberately extend Western forces in an effort to cripple social spending, thus bring about the probability of public disorder.
LikeLike
Interesting. However, I am not entirely sure that US really believes it can break Sino-Russian relations merely by offering to stop a war – the same war, which Russians perceive was instigated by US suggestions to invite Ukraine to NATO.
In my opinion we need to look at what is happening with a much broader perspective, which has to include Europe. It is by now rather obvious that Europe became one of the “victims” of the war. EUs accrued GDP growth between 2021 and 2024 is about 15%, US’s – 25%. In 2021, average USD-EURO rate: 1:0.85 in 2021, today it’s about 1:0.95. My claim is that weakening Europe was not accidental, but rather by design. For a proof of this claim itsuffices to look for the images of results of a huge “boom” in the Baltic in 2022.
But, as the time progresses and situation worsens, I think EU’s leaders realized that they can still get something out of all this. That is a further integration and creation of United States of Europe. For this they need an European army. That’s the last area they do not control. And once they have a true European army, as it is being proposed, they will also invoke the acts of recent treaty changes, that remove unanimity in defence decisions, and will slowly dismantle individual armed forces of countries opposed to further integration (e.g., Hungary).
In addition to the above, a deeper debt and dependence on European funds will be another result that will help eurocrats to further control individual countries.
The only thing needed for this to happen is to keep the war going for a few more years.
Because if the war ends now, Europe finds itself in a lose-lose situation. Which Americans of course understand. So I would look at what is happening from this specific perspective. It is more about keeping America at the top, than it is about China. China even with Russia is not a threat to US and it’s interests as long as they do not seriously attack the mighty $. EU with its own currency becoming the world reserve currency – now that is a real threat.
Imagine 4 more years of the war, 4 more years of Trump “politics” towards everybody, 4 more years of tariff wars, etc etc. And then imagine in 4 years a European Union with its own army, with Canada and Greenland as associated states, with Euro becoming the new reserve currency, and maybe a with a trade deal with China.
I cannot imagine a worse scenario for the US. And even if European leaders are not thinking in these terms they should be.
LikeLike