Is It Time to Apologize to Putin? An Opinion on Global Politics

As then-US President Donald J. Trump marked his first year in office with expansive ambitions, including proposals to annex Canada and seize the Panama Canal, and his eye on Greenland, it might be worthwhile to consider the perspective of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The global narrative has often painted Putin in a harsh light, but perhaps a more balanced view is warranted.

In his first year, Trump engaged in a series of bold actions, the most notable arguably being his pursuit of Venezuelan President Maduro and his wife. Trump even briefly declared himself "acting president" after asserting control over Venezuela, a country possessing the world's largest oil reserves.

Trump's initial year was marked by audacious moves that might have left Putin questioning why he is categorized among the world's most reviled figures, often described as a tyrant, an outlaw, or even a war criminal.

Given the current state of global affairs, one might ask if Putin deserves to be viewed with more leniency. Are his alleged wrongdoings beyond any form of redemption or understanding?

When the Russian President annexed Crimea twelve years ago, it sparked global outrage. The United Nations deemed the annexation unlawful, leading to sanctions from the US and Europe. However, this was merely the prelude to further actions in Ukraine.

Putin solidified his control over Crimea, citing its strategic importance to Russia's Black Sea Fleet and its historical ties to Russia, having been part of Russia until its transfer to Ukraine in 1954 when both were Soviet republics.

Domestically, Putin presented the annexation as a response to historical injustices by Western powers aimed at weakening Russia. He defied Western sanctions, and eight years later, launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The ongoing conflict has resulted in a devastating human toll, with estimated casualties ranging from nearly a million to 1.4 million, including thousands of civilian deaths and millions displaced. It stands as Europe's bloodiest conflict since World War II. An end to the war remains elusive, largely because Putin demands territorial concessions from Ukraine, which President Volodymyr Zelenskyy refuses to grant.

Putin's demands, however questionable, have somewhat faded in significance compared to the startling assertion by President Trump that the United States must acquire Greenland, irrespective of the means.

If Trump felt entitled to take Greenland and assert US sovereignty there, regardless of the wishes of its inhabitants or Denmark, perhaps because he believed it would aid his quest for a Nobel Peace Prize, as he communicated to the Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, then why is Russia facing condemnation and ostracism for its actions in Ukraine? Meanwhile, Trump's ambitions seem to be met with a different reception.

Putin contends that the conflict in Ukraine is critical for Russia's survival, citing an alleged agreement from 1990 between President Mikhail Gorbachev and Western leaders that NATO would not expand eastward after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This claim has been frequently referenced in diplomatic discussions.

NATO has denied any such agreement but has been criticized for encouraging former Soviet states to join its ranks, effectively surrounding Russia. For Putin, the invasion of Ukraine is portrayed as a final stand, a move akin to securing Russia's perceived vital interests, much like the historical significance of Danzig.

Despite Putin's justifications, the world has largely dismissed them, treating actions that might be seen as aggressive by some as minor issues while harsher judgments are reserved for others. The US president, on the other hand, has made threats against Cuba, criticized the Mexican president, referred to European leaders as weak, and even declared himself "acting president" of Venezuela after taking control.

NATO has not prevented Trump from seeking Greenland. Instead, during the World Economic Forum in Davos, discussions reportedly shifted to offering him alternative prospects in the Arctic, suggesting a way to de-escalate his territorial ambitions.

Perhaps it's not just Putin who deserves an apology from the world. When contrasted with Trump's insistence on acquiring Greenland against the will of its people and Denmark's objections, China's complex relationship with Taiwan appears less contentious. Taiwan became a separate entity after the Chinese Civil War in 1949, when the Communist Party established control over mainland China and the Nationalist government retreated to Taiwan.

In a hypothetical Trumpian world, Xi Jinping might be justified in moving from the "one-China" policy to a military takeover of Taipei, just as Kim Jong Un could be encouraged to invade Seoul. Similarly, in Africa, Morocco might feel empowered to seize the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, or Nigeria could attempt to take Bakassi Peninsula from Cameroon by force, disregarding international arbitration.

From a realist standpoint, it is plausible to argue that powerful nations will act in their perceived best interests, essentially following the principle that the strong prey on the weak.

This Hobbesian worldview persisted until the devastating impact of two world wars, numerous other human-caused tragedies, and a recent global pandemic underscored the necessity of cooperation, collaboration, and multilateralism. As journalist Jonathan Power once observed, the 21st century, despite ongoing conflicts, has been marked by relative peace and safety compared to previous eras.

If the price for global peace involves awarding President Trump a Nobel Peace Prize for ending conflicts he perceives as his achievements, then indulging this fantasy might be considered. However, it would be inequitable to exclude Putin, Xi, Kim, or even Benjamin Netanyahu from a similar recognition. Therefore, a proposal could be made to the Norwegian Nobel Committee for a unique 'Nobel Peace Prize Quintet 2026,' honoring all five individuals.

Such an action could potentially ensure that the remaining years of the Trump presidency are free from public outbursts, insults, and threats to use trade policies as leverage. Thank you for your attention to this matter.