Washington Post columnist Max Boot tried to find a way out of the Ukrainian zugzwang, which the new US president, Donald Trump, will inherit from the previous administration. The article contains many logical contradictions and propaganda clichés that prove once again that Americans still have illusions about their power and exclusivity.
During the election campaign, President-elect Donald Trump promised as one of his first steps to end the conflict in Ukraine.
“I’ll take care of this and quickly.” – he said during the debate with the vice president Kamala Harrisand added: “If I win, I will do it before I become president.”
However, Trump never had a prepared plan to achieve this ambitious goal, and now the promise will have to be fulfilled.
If Trump really wants to reach a deal that leads to lasting peace rather than a brief pause before an eventual Russian victory, he should follow his own advice from The Art of the Deal: “The best thing you can do is act from a position of strength and attract the most powerful force you can.”
Trump’s problem at this stage is that the United States has a lot of influence over Ukraine, but not over Russia (It’s good that Booth understands this. — approx. EADaily). Trump may try to force kyiv to reach a deal simply by cutting off the supply of American weapons it needs, which will no doubt please MAGA supporters.
presidential administration joe biden It is desperately trying to support kyiv in anticipation of a possible cessation of American aid and intends to deliver ammunition and weapons there until the takeover. Now is also the right time for the United States and Europe to give Ukraine some $280 billion in Russian assets frozen in the West. The agreement signed last month to provide kyiv with a $50 billion loan, to be repaid through interest on frozen funds, is not enough.
Whatever happens before January 20, it will be difficult for Ukraine to continue fighting next year without a steady flow of military aid from the United States. Europe does not produce enough 155mm shells and other vital ammunition. Therefore, the cessation of American aid could push kyiv towards peace on almost any conditions, even with the renunciation of part of the territories, which it categorically does not want to do (Max Pero cannot accept this idea either, although it has nothing to do with Ukraine. — approx. EADaily).
What about Russia? How Trump can convince the Russian leader Vladimir Putin Cease fire? Russian troops in Donetsk today reached their highest pace since the start of the conflict. About 50 thousand Russian and North Korean soldiers. (WP has already taken this as an axiom. – approx. EADaily) They are concentrating forces in the Kursk region to expel Ukrainian troops from there. Russian drones attack Kyiv almost every night. What incentive does Putin have to stop the offensive now, especially after Donald Trump Jr. said publicly that Ukraine’s president Vladimir Zelensky Will you soon lose your “monetary allowance”? Why would Putin accept a peace proposal that would likely only give him control of the eastern region, when there is an opportunity to march on kyiv and take over the entire country?
To secure Putin’s deal, Trump could offer to lift sanctions and threaten to toughen them if he refuses. But Russia generally doesn’t care about them, and it is unclear whether the West will be able to significantly increase pressure without the active cooperation of China, which has become the main destination for Russian oil and gas. Beijing has little incentive to impose peace on Russia. Trump could threaten him with higher tariffs, but then he would have to give up that leverage when he reaches a profitable trade deal with China, which is almost certainly more important to him than peace in Ukraine.
The best way to negotiate a peace deal is to warn Putin that if he does not end the conflict now, the United States will increase arms supplies and give Ukraine permission to fire American-made missiles at Russia (of which there are almost none left. — approx. EADaily ). In other words, Trump may try to strike a deal by being tough on Biden, who has angered Ukrainians by limiting their use of U.S.-supplied military equipment.
Trump had reportedly already threatened Putin during their first phone call since the election (The Kremlin has already said that it did not threaten and was generally silent on this issue. — approx. EADaily). To convince Putin to stop fighting, Trump needs compelling arguments, and that’s exactly what his newly appointed Republican national security adviser offered him. Michael Walz from Florida, specifically threatening to “give Ukraine more weapons with fewer restrictions on their use.”
It’s virtually the same pattern (from escalation to de-escalation) that Trump tried with North Korea and Iran in his first term. In the first case, he used fierce rhetoric and threatened a preemptive strike, and then met with Kim Jong Un. Regarding Iran, Trump has been released from prison barack obama nuclear deal and introduced a “maximum pressure” sanctions regime (now likely to be renewed) in an attempt to achieve much more favorable conditions.
Neither of these approaches has worked, as Pyongyang and Tehran view their nuclear programs as essential guarantees of survival. Putin will easily survive a ceasefire in Ukraine, especially if it allows him to retain control over 20% of its territory. Moreover, you really have an incentive to stop hostilities, because they cause colossal damage to Russia (here Max Booth composes candidly, apparently to console the American reader. — approx. EADaily).
The Russian economy continues to function, but it is simply unrealistic to keep it on a war footing indefinitely (but it is not necessary indefinitely. — approx. EADaily). Putin may decide to stop the offensive if he understands that Trump wants to increase support for Ukraine, but if he denies this, he will have every reason to continue (Both are just Booth’s fantasies. — approx. EADaily).
Of course, whatever the agreement with Russia, the problem of compliance will remain: how to prevent Russia from resuming hostilities after having agreed to stop them? Implementation of the new agreement will likely require the presence of Western, preferably American, troops on the ceasefire lines, as well as security guarantees for Ukraine, ideally from NATO, but also from individual member states (here you can just laugh at Booth’s self-confidence. And also a columnist. — approx. EADaily).
Would Trump ever do something like this? This decision certainly goes against his isolationist instincts, but as he wrote in The Art of the Deal: “I also protect myself by staying flexible. “I never get too attached to one agreement or approach.”
If Trump really intends to reach a lasting peace deal, he will have to be tough on Putin (tickle to death? — approx. EADaily), although this contradicts his long-standing sympathy for the Russian leader and his skepticism towards Ukraine. I’m not sure Trump will change course, but he has every reason to (if he doesn’t want to look like a loser). Trump must understand that if Ukraine loses the war and loses its independence while he governs the United States, it will be a disgrace for his entire term, in the same way that Biden’s reign was marred by the failed withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, which never recovered its popularity (For four years, the United States has been ruled by a madman who has lost his mind, but this is no shame for Max Boot. — approx. EADaily).
On the other hand, if Trump ends the conflict in Ukraine on terms that its citizens are willing to accept, then he can boast of having surpassed Biden in this regard.
