On his way to Alaska, Trump said he wouldn't be happy if he left without a ceasefire, but afterwards posted on social media that ceasefires "oftentimes do not hold up"( Reuters )
Matters that they appeared not to achieve. What is the current situation?
It was not surprising to me or any seasoned diplomat that the summit yielded no tangible outcome.
Initially, neither Russia nor Ukraine was seeking to engage in peace discussions. It seems that neither of them is prepared at this point. Additionally, the procedure had issues. It wasn't adequately prepared beforehand, at the level of the Secretary of State and the foreign minister. It wasn’t organized at the employee level.
What took me by surprise was that the last few days before the summit, the White House began conveying what I viewed as somewhat realistic signals. They mentioned, “We are hopeful for a ceasefire, followed by a second round of discussions in a few weeks, which will be the genuine negotiations.”
Well, that seems fairly sensible. That might have occurred. It wasn't a bad plan. The issue was that it never occurred. And we aren’t certain why it didn’t occur.
Interpreting the subtleties, a few issues were present. Initially, the Russians simply weren’t prepared for this, and they declared, “No ceasefire." “We aim to proceed directly to discussions for lasting peace.”
Ukraine and its European allies are opposed to that. Why?
In a ceasefire, the typical outcome is that the fighting factions retain control over the territory their forces currently occupy. That's simply a portion of the agreement. You can’t enter a 60- or 90-day truce and demand that everyone return to their positions from four years prior.
However, if you pursue a lasting peace agreement, which is what Putin desires, you must determine that individuals will retreat, correct? This is the first issue.
The second issue is that it’s evident Putin is determined to retain portions of the land that his forces captured in 2014 and 2022. That's simply not an option for the Ukrainians.
Is Putin acting that way because it is truly his fundamental demand, or did he aim to sabotage these peace negotiations, and this was an effective method to do so? It might be one or the other, or both.
Russia has indicated its desire to retain portions of Ukraine, citing historical ties and ethnic composition.
The issue is that the global community has indicated for many years that you cannot achieve your desires by attacking the neighboring nation.
Recall during Gulf War I, when Saddam Hussein invaded and absorbed Kuwait, transforming it into the 19th province of Iraq? The U.S. and Europe intervened and removed him. Additionally, there are instances where the U.S. and Europe have advised nations, “Refrain from doing this.” “Doing this will have negative consequences for you.”
If Russia discovers that it can invade Ukraine, take land, and be permitted to retain it, what would stop it from doing the same to another nation? What would prevent another country from doing it?
You’re saying the entire world is observing.
Certainly. Additionally, the world is observing that the U.S. provided security assurances to Ukraine in 1994 when it relinquished the nuclear arms it possessed, as did Europe. The U.S. has provided Ukraine with diplomatic and military assistance throughout this conflict. If the U.S. fails them, what message does that convey about the reliability of the U.S. as a partner?
The U.S. is dealing with a completely different situation across the globe, as it takes on China in multiple aspects. What if the U.S. communicates to the Taiwanese, “Listen, you should secure the best agreement possible with China, as we won't support your actions.”
No fewer than six European leaders will travel to Washington with Zelenskyy. What does that indicate to you?
They are showing a united stance to Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to convey, “Listen, we cannot allow this. Europe consists of several nations. If we find ourselves in a scenario where one nation attacks another and retains the territory it seized, we cannot accept that.
President Trump spoke with each of them before the summit, and they likely left with a clear impression that the U.S. was advocating for a ceasefire. And then, that didn’t occur.
Instead, Trump adopted Putin's stance of directly pursuing peace negotiations without a ceasefire.
I don't believe they enjoyed it. I believe they’re arriving to tell him, “No, we must implement a ceasefire first." Then discussions and, by the way, acquiring territory and maintaining it set a dreadful example. What’s stopping Russia from simply invading the three Baltic nations – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – afterward? The maps of Europe created a century ago have remained intact. Allowing Russia to eliminate several borders on the map and annex territories could lead to significant chaos.
Where do you think things are headed?
Unless you hear of a ceasefire, nothing significant has occurred, and the factions are still engaging in combat and causing deaths.
After the Monday meetings, I would check if Trump remains steadfast following Alaska, asserting, “No, we will pursue a significant, comprehensive peace deal, and land for peace is available.”
Or does he somewhat revert to the European perspective and state, “I truly believe the first priority must be a ceasefire”?
Even Trump’s detractors must recognize that he has never been an advocate for war. He dislikes conflict. He believes it's overly chaotic. He is unable to manage it. No way to predict what will occur after a war. I believe he truly desires an end to the shootings and the killings more than anything else.
The method to achieve that is by implementing a ceasefire. You have two groups that say, “See, we still loathe one another.” We continue to face this crucial question of who governs these areas, yet we both concur that it benefits us to halt the conflict for 60 to 90 days as we address this matter.
If you don’t hear that from the White House during the Monday meetings, this won’t progress.
Thousands of Ukrainian children have been taken by Russia – essentially abducted. Does that participate in any of these discussions?
It ought to. It was a fear strategy.
This might be a location where you can achieve advancement. If Putin stated, “We still won’t give you any territory, but, sure, you can have these kids back,” it’s the sort of gesture you present to demonstrate that you’re not a villain and that you are somewhat earnest about these discussions.
I’m uncertain if they will do that. It's truly a sad tale.
0 Comments