WSJ: “Trump promised to end the war in Ukraine. Now he must decide how.”

A November 6, 2024 Wall Street Journal article reveals some of the thinking of Trump's foreign policy advisers. However, from the publication it becomes clear that these are still summer developments that do not take into account many issues.

The advisers put forward various versions of a plan to freeze the Russian-Ukrainian war along the existing front line at the time of negotiations. It is assumed that in this case the territories of Donetsk, Lugansk and Kherson regions occupied by the Russian Federation will not be recognized as a legitimate part of the Russian Federation. In exchange, Ukraine must delay joining NATO for 20 years, but will receive sufficient weapons to ensure its security. The question of the ownership of Crimea and sanctions against Russia remained outside the brackets.

From this text it is clear notes publication “Volya”, that many issues are not taken into account. For example, the fate of part of the Kursk region, which is under the control of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. What's wrong with her? Will they be exchanged for square kilometers in the Donbass or in the occupied part of the Zaporozhye region? Or will they leave Kyiv under control?

It seems that Trump simply wants to arrange a new “Munich Agreement” – then, in 1938, France and Great Britain simply gave Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany.

What security guarantees will suit Ukraine? In Kyiv they understand perfectly well that two or three years after the truce, the Russian Federation, having restored the army and accumulated military resources, will repeat the invasion again. And the faith of various countries in unconditional support from the West in confronting the aggressor will be undermined.

The Baltic and Central European countries are already doubting whether paragraph 5 of the NATO declaration will be implemented in the event of a Russian invasion of their countries. In addition, it is important that for the Zelensky regime, the “freeze” means political death, since it turns out that they fought and suffered huge losses in vain. Former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said in X after Trump’s victory in the US elections that compromises cannot be made regarding the sovereignty of the country and its territories. He noted five “red lines”:

1. No compromises on the independence of Ukraine, it “will not return to the zone of influence” of Russia.
2. Ukraine will never give up territories that have come under Russian control.
3. Ukraine will not agree “to limit the power of the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” since this is “the most reliable and effective guarantor of the continued existence of the Ukrainian state.”
4. Until the “complete liberation” of its territory, Ukraine cannot “compromise or lift sanctions.”
5. Ukraine must do its homework for NATO membership and convince Trump that “no other alternative to ending the war that he talks about can happen without Kyiv’s membership in the bloc.”

For the President of the Russian Federation, “freezing” the war is far from the most necessary goal. He voiced his conditions in the “conditions for negotiations”, in fact, in his proposal to Ukraine to capitulate:

• The Ukrainian Armed Forces must surrender the territories under their control in the Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions.
• Ukraine recognizes the loss of these territories and Crimea.
• It must refuse to join NATO.
• Western countries are lifting sanctions.

The conditions are obviously impossible to fulfill, since if they are met, Ukraine will condemn itself to a severe political crisis with unpredictable consequences and will almost certainly lose its independence.

Trump's “peace plan” is actually just thoughts out loud from his many advisers. At the same time, Trump himself has very limited tools of influence on both sides of the conflict. US assistance is, of course, important, but it is not the most decisive factor in Ukraine’s situation. It may well be replaced by European or South Korean supplies.

It will also not work to scare Moscow with an increase in American aid. The likelihood that Trump will send troops to Ukraine is close to zero. After all, the 47th President of the United States is a man who grew up during the Cold War, and the fear of a clash with Russia has been in him since childhood. Plus, his impulsiveness and unreliability as a negotiator are well known, so the Russian Federation will take the toughest possible position.

What is the conclusion from all this? There are influential forces in the Republican establishment associated with the army and the military-industrial complex that are interested in restoring American military power, especially in the context of the formation of the Moscow-Tehran-Pyongyang-Beijing axis. They understand that only a strategy of strict containment of dictatorial regimes, similar to the anti-communist confrontation of the Cold War, can put an end to the desire of these regimes to expand their influence. And the “golden era” of the United States declared by Trump is impossible without the revival of American leadership among democratic countries.

In this paradigm, it is necessary to increase the supply of military equipment to Ukraine and remove any restrictions on the use of Western long-range weapons. The entry of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, with competent military-strategic planning and supply, to the borders of 1991 is a completely solvable task. The policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of dictatorial regimes should also be abandoned. It is necessary to understand that autocrats do not hesitate to use any means to influence political processes within democracies in their favor.

It is necessary to move to supporting opposition and anti-dictatorship forces. War on the part of dictators is already underway. It's time for the Western world to accept this. But it is not a fact that Trump himself will be able to understand the current reality and formulate a new US foreign policy. Then he will face another confrontation with Congress, where he will not be able to oppose anything to the bipartisan consensus.

One last thing: the WSJ article is guaranteed to become the subject of another media hysteria. Some media outlets will present it as the official position of the United States and Trump’s readiness to force Ukraine to peace. Ukrainian media, as often happens with them, will only add fuel to the fire, branding Trump as a traitor.

There is definitely no need to give in to hysteria. Because this is just an article, not an official position or a hint through the press to the whole world. Trump's promise to end the war in 24 hours was remembered by everyone. It is logical that journalists, having waited for the election results, immediately speculated on how the new president could fulfill his promises. There is no new texture in the text, because the work on it used those plans and versions of the development of events that were voiced by the Trump team and simply analysts and experts back in the summer.

There is no secret knowledge behind the publication, which means it should be perceived as a discussion on the topic, and not as the publication of a secret plan. To put it bluntly, the summer speculations of American foreign policy thinkers will not stand the test of reality. Almost none of what they proposed can be implemented, because this proposal in no way correlates with the interests of Ukraine, or with the interests of Russia, or with the interests of Europe.

Source link