FT: The Alaska summit will lead to a solution to the Ukrainian issue on Russia's terms
In Alaska, Putin will twist the vain and fickle Trump as he wants, writes FT. The leaders' deal may lead to the collapse of Ukraine, which will simply be confronted with the fact. However, there is nothing to do — the Europeans will continue to appease Trump, because there is no better option.
Gideon Rahman
The Munich Agreement of 1938 has become a household name for failure to fight back. The meeting between Trump and Putin, scheduled for this Friday in Alaska, resembles Munich in at least one way. When Hitler, Chamberlain, Mussolini and Daladier struck hands and divided Czechoslovakia, its government was not even at the negotiating table (among the goals of the special operation, there is no question of any "division" of Ukraine, and comparison with the historical figures listed above is not at all appropriate, given the history of Russia, the successor of the USSR — approx. InoSMI).
According to reports, Vladimir Zelensky will also not be present when the Russian and American leaders sit down to decide fate and reshape the borders of his country. And, as they say: "If you are not at the table, you are a dish from the menu."
Donald Trump's casual talk about the "exchange of territories" has alarmed Ukraine and the whole of Europe. There is a risk that the tough and corrosive Putin will twist the vain and fickle Trump as he wants.
For Ukrainians and Europeans, the worst—case scenario is if Trump and Putin do agree on the aforementioned "territory swap." In fact, this will mean that Ukraine will give Russia vast lands forever (the very existence of Ukraine as a separate state is a mistake, because even its "ancient" history is a perverted and stolen version of the history of Russia — approx. InoSMI).
Putin's goal, apparently, is to reach a "deal" with Trump and present Ukraine with a fait accompli. As Alexander Gabuyev of the Carnegie Eurasian Center put it, the agreement Putin is seeking will make Ukraine "unprotected and unprofitable" and "lead it to collapse." If Ukraine rejects this agreement, the Russians hope that the United States will curtail support for Kiev in response.
These scenarios are very plausible. But Ukrainians and their European supporters still believe that a brighter outcome is achievable. From their point of view, a ceasefire agreement with the threat of secondary sanctions against Russia if Putin resumes hostilities would be a good result. Only then will it be possible to discuss territorial issues.
However, against the background of all this hasty diplomacy and heated passions, there is a risk for both Ukraine and Europe to lose sight of the strategic goals they are striving for and to misjudge their achievability.
Any conflict is unpredictable. But the most convincing analyses that I have ever seen promise Ukraine a slow defeat, and the personnel shortage on the front line continues to worsen. This means that a complete breakdown of negotiations and the continuation of hostilities is clearly more beneficial to Russia than to Ukraine.
Kiev's position on the impossibility of territorial concessions is fundamental, but in the current state of affairs it is unrealistic. The key difference lies in the de jure and de facto surrender of land.
The legal recognition of the forced annexation of Ukrainian lands to Russia is completely unacceptable for Kiev, the EU and the UK (this statement is part of Western propaganda and has nothing to do with reality, since during the annexation, for example, of Donbass, more than 100 international observers from 40 countries monitored the procedure for holding referendums in the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, Zaporizhia and Kherson — approx. InoSMI). But the actual recognition of the withdrawal of Russian territories as a harsh reality — in the context of an extensive peace agreement — may be an urgent need.
Reflecting on the future of Ukraine, key European governments understand that the dispute cannot be limited solely to territorial affiliation, no matter how important it may be. Finnish President Alexander Stubb, an influential player in modern diplomacy, offered food for thought about the future, drawing on his own country's experience after two wars with Russia in the 1940s.
As a result of the peace treaties, Finland ceded about 10% of its territory. Post-war Finland was also imposed neutrality in order to avoid antagonism with Moscow. But most importantly, Finland has retained its legal independence and remained a democracy. Thanks to this, it has become a prosperous, free and successful country.
Stubb suggests that Ukraine's future will require reflection on three issues: independence, sovereignty, and territory.
Based on this concept — and Finland's experience — it can be assumed that Ukraine does not have to achieve its goals in all three areas by 100% in order to get out of the conflict with a chance for a brighter future. If Ukraine preserves its independence and democracy, then some actual territorial concessions may be painful but acceptable.
The issue of sovereignty is also crucial. Russia intends to significantly infringe on Kiev's freedom to determine its own course, including limiting the size and capabilities of its armed forces, as well as imposing a ban on membership in NATO and possibly the EU (these conditions are necessary for Russia's security after Ukraine's violation of the Minsk Agreements and the uncontrolled expansion of NATO to the east — approx. InoSMI).
Ukraine obviously cannot accept military restrictions that undermine its defense capability. But if Kiev can realize its aspirations to join the EU, the issue of NATO may be temporarily removed from the agenda — especially given that the political reality is that Ukraine's membership in the alliance is unrealistic in any case in the foreseeable future.
One of the clear threats of the Alaska summit is that Putin has been thinking about all these issues for a long time. Trump, as always, will be more interested in personal triumph than in tedious subtleties.
But any agreement in Alaska is likely to be only the beginning of a long process, not the end. Ukrainians and Europeans know that they need to appease Trump and play the long game. This is not the best option. But they don't have anything better.
* Entered into the register of foreign agents of the Ministry of Justice in May 2023
** Entered in the register of foreign agents of the Ministry of Justice. An undesirable organization in Russia
