Follow us on social

Fareed Zakaria

Fareed Zakaria, stuck somewhere in 1950 or 1995, is wrong again

Transatlantic elites let political bias and their sclerotic world view prevent them from seeing the Ukraine War for what it really is

Analysis | QiOSK

If the foreign policy of the Trump administration has done nothing else, it has certainly succeeded in depriving many members of the Washington and European foreign and security establishments of their wits. Talk is rife of the U.S. “leaving NATO,” of the “end of the global order,” of a “new Yalta agreement,” and so on. None of this is true.

A certain crudeness and melodrama in the Trump administration’s approach (and especially language) is partly responsible for this hysterical response. It is also true that certain Trump statements have been utterly wrong, unnecessary, and counter-productive. Threats to take Greenland and aggressive mockery of Canada and Mexico help nobody. Nor do constant threats of tariff increases — even if so far, these have always been followed by practical compromises. Some of the cuts to USAID were correct; others not.

Other factors however are also at work in the overwhelming condemnation of the administration’s foreign policy in Western establishments. Too many analysts are allowing their judgement of Trump’s foreign policy to be clouded by their partisan allegiances and visceral opposition to his domestic agenda. Moreover, a lifetime of nesting cosily in the bosom of the Cold-War-derived Transatlantic establishment and sucking on its certainties has made these analysts incapable of responding to a changing world.

Thus, in an opinion article on Friday in the Washington Post, Fareed Zakaria endorses panicky German views that the U.S. can no longer be relied on to defend Germany and implies that the Trump administration is ready to abandon its commitment to NATO.

In his remarks at the Munich Security Conference, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated unequivocally that “the U.S. is committed to building a stronger, more lethal NATO.” He called for much higher military spending and development of military industries by European members of NATO — but this call, though Hegseth couched it in more forthright terms, has been made by every American administration since Eisenhower. As Hegseth said, it was Ike who first accused the Europeans of “making a sucker out of Uncle Sam.”

Germans or others who fear that the U.S. under Trump is leaving NATO and would not defend Germany really just need to ask themselves one simple question: Would any American administration voluntarily leave Ramstein air base, let alone (in some fantasy parallel universe) hand it to Russia? Apart from anything else, even if the Trump administration did not wish to maintain a military presence in and commitment to NATO in Europe for the sake of vital interests there, it would certainly do so for the sake of American power projection in the Middle East.

In withdrawing the vague promise of NATO membership for Ukraine at some indefinite future date, Trump is neither “betraying Ukraine,” “withdrawing from NATO,” nor “upending the European security order.” He is withdrawing from a very new quasi-commitment beyond NATO’s borders that was always not just reckless and dangerous but utterly insincere.

This commitment also had catastrophic results for Ukraine. It fueled Russian hostility without ever guaranteeing the defense of Ukraine.

By withdrawing from this mendacious “commitment,” Trump is not weakening NATO but strengthening it; and this is something that the Balts in particular should be brought to understand. For Baltic security rests on an absolute Russian conviction of the certainty of U.S. and NATO commitment under Article 5.

By continually urging the extension of Article 5 (or a European peacekeeping force with a U..S “backstop” which would be an Article 5 guarantee in all but name) to Ukraine, which NATO countries never intended to fight for, the Balts - if this were to come to pass - would gravely undermine their own security.

With the appointment of former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas as the EU’s foreign policy chief, the Europeans have imported a representative of this Baltic strategic insanity into the heart of their security consultations. There is however no need for Washington to follow suit.

By the same token, talk of a compromise peace in Ukraine constituting a “new Yalta” is historical illiteracy or deliberate deceit. The Yalta Agreement drew a rigid strategic and ideological line through the heart of Europe and the middle of Germany, less than a hundred miles from the French border. A compromise peace in Ukraine will draw a line between some provinces in eastern Ukraine, 1,100 miles to the east. The only similarity is that in 1945 the Western allies were not prepared to fight their former Soviet allies to drive them out of Central Europe, and today we are not prepared to fight the Russians to drive them out of eastern Ukraine.

As for Zakaria and his allies, having created imaginary Trump policies, he goes on to imagine their apocalyptic consequences. In the Far East, Taiwan will be abandoned and Japan, losing confidence in American protection, will develop nuclear weapons. In a new version of the old “Domino Effect” nonsense this will also embolden China to attack Taiwan. This line is very odd indeed, since the explicit goal of leading Trump officials in seeking peace in Ukraine is to allow the U.S. to concentrate more fully on containing China in the Far East. If nobody in the administration is talking about the U.S. leaving Ramstein, they are certainly not talking about leaving Okinawa.

Perhaps most bizarre of all is Zakaria’s assertion that somehow, through a series of imaginatively constructed links, peace in Ukraine will encourage countries to abandon the dollar as their currency of trade and financial transactions. This is already happening, but because of the ways in which previous U.S. administrations sought to weaponize the dollar and its domination of the global financial system to achieve Washington’s geopolitical aims. Before that, China and Russia were entirely comfortable with the dollar.

At the heart of Zakaria’s mentality, and that of the Transatlantic security establishments in general, is his statement that “All these American moves will have an effect; they will begin to usher in a new multipolar world.” Has he seriously not realized that this multipolar world is already here, and that it has been created not by some error of U.S. policy, but by the vast economic rise of China and India, the partial recovery of Russia, and the determination of countries around the world not to sacrifice their own interests to the agendas of Washington (as witness their refusal to support the U.S. and Europe against Russia)?

It is as if Zakaria can only feel safe and comfortable in a world that is some combination of that of 1950, when an economically utterly dominant U.S. confronted an alliance of totalitarian enemies, and of 1995, when a geopolitically utterly dominant U.S. lacked any serious competitor.

Insofar as those worlds ever existed except in the megalomaniac minds of the Transatlantic elites, they are gone for ever, and the likes of Zakaria cannot preserve them even in imagination.


Top photo credit: Fareed Zakaria at World Economic Forum in Davos, 2018. (Drop of Light/Shutterstock)
Analysis | QiOSK
President Trump with reporters
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump speaks with members of the media at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland on Sunday, September 7, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Is Israel forcing Trump to be the capitulator in chief?

Middle East

President Donald Trump told reporters outside a Washington restaurant Tuesday evening that he is deeply displeased with Israel’s bombardment of Qatar, a close U.S. partner in the Persian Gulf that, at Washington’s request, has hosted Hamas’s political leadership since 2012.

“I am not thrilled about it. I am not thrilled about the whole situation,” Trump said, denying that Israel had given him advance notice. “I was very unhappy about it, very unhappy about every aspect of it,” he continued. “We’ve got to get the hostages back. But I was very unhappy with the way that went down.”

keep readingShow less
Europe Ukraine
Top image credit: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Volodymyr Zelenskyi, President of Ukraine, Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the UK, and Donald Tusk, Prime Minister of Poland, emerge from St. Mary's Palace for a press conference as part of the Coalition of the Willing meeting in Kiev, May 10 2025, Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Is Europe deliberately sabotaging Ukraine War negotiations?

Europe

After last week’s meeting of the “coalition of the willing” in Paris, 26 countries have supposedly agreed to contribute — in some fashion — to a military force that would be deployed on Ukrainian soil after hostilities have concluded.

Three weeks prior, at the Anchorage leaders’ summit press conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin noted that Ukraine’s security should be ensured as part of any negotiated settlement. But Russian officials have continued to reiterate that this cannot take the form of Western combat forces stationed in Ukraine. In the wake of last week’s meeting, Putin has upped the ante by declaring that any such troops would be legitimate targets for the Russian military.

keep readingShow less
After bombing, time to demystify the 'Qatar lobby'
Top photo credit: The Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, is standing third from the left in the front row, alongside the Minister of Culture of Qatar, Abdulrahman bin Hamad bin Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani, who is at the center, and the Minister of Culture, Sports and Youth of Oman, Sayyid Theyazin bin Haitham Al Said, who is second from the right in Doha, Qatar, on May 9, 2024. (Photo by Noushad Thekkayil/NurPhoto)

After bombing, time to demystify the 'Qatar lobby'

Middle East

On Tuesday, Israel bombed Doha, killing at least five Hamas staffers and a member of Qatari security. Israeli officials initially claimed the US green-lit the operation, despite Qatar hosting the largest U.S. military in the region.

The White House has since contradicted that version of events, saying the White House was given notice “just before” the bombing and claiming the strike was an “unfortunate" attack that "could serve as an opportunity for peace.”

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.