American political scientist warns of prolonged war and rising costs for Europe– INTERVIEW
As tensions surrounding the G7 summit and the war in Ukraine continue to mount, the conversation about U.S. policy toward Russia is gaining renewed urgency. In an exclusive interview with News.Az, American political scientist Alan Cafruny, the Henry Platt Bristol Professor of International Affairs at Hamilton College, shares his views on Donald Trump’s changing rhetoric, the prospects for resolving the Ukraine conflict, and the risks of further escalation in Europe and the Middle East.
- On the eve of the G7 summit, US President Donald Trump called Russia's exclusion from the G8 a mistake. What is behind this assessment? Why is the US increasingly talking about the West's mistaken course toward Russia?
- Trump has abandoned his outright confrontational stance towards Volodymyr Zelensky that was evident in the notorious Oval Office debacle back in February. However, his campaign against “forever wars” continues to resonate strongly with his political base and therefore shapes his policy towards Ukraine. Key figures in his administration, including Vice President J.D. Vance and negotiator Steven Witkoff, want to redirect U.S. military focus to Asia.
- Trump claims that keeping Russia in the G8 could have helped prevent the outbreak of the Ukrainian conflict. However, the West has shown little interest in revisiting its own strategic errors. Who benefits from the ongoing confrontation with Russia?
- The potential return of Russia to the G8—though unlikely at this stage—demonstrates Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy and his desire to restore economic ties with Moscow. At the same time, neoconservative forces continue to wield significant influence within his administration, as reflected in the positions of figures like Lindsey Graham and chief negotiator Keith Kellogg. Even his hawkish Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has admitted that the war in Ukraine has essentially become a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia. Trump’s contradictory rhetoric reflects the internal divisions within the Republican Party's MAGA base—not only regarding Russia, but Iran as well.
- The cancellation of Trump’s meeting with Zelensky during the G7 summit drew considerable attention, especially after Zelensky stated he intended to discuss arms supplies. What does this cancellation signify?
- Trump’s abrupt exit from the summit and the canceled meeting with Zelensky may not carry deep implications for U.S.-Ukraine relations in isolation, but it does reflect growing transatlantic rifts. More importantly, it underscores how the Middle East crisis is increasingly overshadowing the war in Ukraine on the global agenda.
- In March, the EU overtook the US in total military aid to Ukraine for the first time since June 2022. According to the Kiel Institute, the EU has provided Kyiv with €72 billion in military aid. What is Europe trying to achieve by fueling the conflict, and what risks does this entail?
- Despite the clear humanitarian and escalatory risks, Europe’s efforts to prolong the war are proving self-defeating. Sanctions against Russia have been ineffective but highly damaging to the European economy. Rampant increases in military spending, justified by the phantom threat of a Russian invasion, are accelerating Europe’s economic decline. In the event of a U.S. withdrawal, these efforts will prove inadequate. The EU’s hawkish policies are likely to fuel greater political polarization, and the human cost could reach into the hundreds of thousands.
- What are the prospects for renewed negotiations between Russia and Ukraine? What will influence the outcome, and what are the risks of failure?
- At this point, direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine are unlikely to yield meaningful results, especially given ongoing Western military and economic support and the Trump administration’s ambiguous position. As seen during the Istanbul talks, the only viable agreements relate to prisoner exchanges. Zelensky’s ability to offer substantial concessions is heavily constrained by domestic political pressures, especially from nationalist factions. Given these realities, the war's outcome is likely to be determined on the battlefield.
Similar news
