Andrey Nizamutdinov — on the prospects for the development of the situation in Ukraine with the return of the former president to power in the United States
The decision of the current head of the American administration, Joe Biden, to withdraw from the presidential race made Donald Trump's chances in the fight for the White House even more preferable. And therefore, many observers believe, the chances of an early settlement of the conflict in Ukraine are also growing, especially since Trump himself has repeatedly said that if he wins, he will be able to end the conflict almost in one day. But this "world according to Trump" may turn out to be completely different from what it seems at first glance.
Who will pay?
In fact, there was talk of increasing the likelihood of Trump's victory even after his debate with Biden, and especially after the failed assassination attempt on the ex-president. Against this background, many of those who had not been too fond of the ex-president before tried to establish contacts with him. Vladimir Zelensky was one of the first to make contact, which, however, is not surprising: the position of the overdue president of a country entirely dependent on the West forces him to keep his nose to the wind and sniff sensitively at the slightest changes.
It is noteworthy that his position was changing almost before our eyes. Very shortly before the telephone conversation with Trump, Zelensky, in an interview with the BBC, said that he would not accept the plan of the former US president if he assumed that Kiev would have to pay for peace: "The question is what the price will be and who will pay... If he wants to do it in 24 hours, then the easiest way is to make us pay… It means just stopping, giving up [territories] and forgetting. <...> We will never do this. Never. And no guy in the world is going to make us do it." However, after the conversation, Zelensky changed his tone and started talking about the possibility of negotiations with Moscow: first, he simply mentioned the likelihood of Russia's participation in the "second peace summit" (by the first he meant the congress held in mid-June in the Swiss Burgenstock), and then completely allowed the possibility of negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin (previously, the Ukrainian president banned his by decree, such negotiations). "At the second world summit, if the plan is fully ready, if Russia is ready to talk through this plan <...> then we will be ready to talk together with our partners with representatives of Russia. And whether it's going to be Putin, or it's not going to be Putin, what's the difference," Zelensky said in an interview with the same BBC.
Thus, the Ukrainian president changed the tone, but the essence of his scenario remained the same. He expects that the collective West, standing behind Kiev, with the participation of a certain number of states of the global South, will present Russia with an ultimatum, which it will have to fulfill. In other words, in Zelensky's dreams, it will be Russia that will have to pay for everything.
Johnson's Carrot and Stick
Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson also spoke about Trump's ability to end the conflict in Ukraine, who, unlike Zelensky, did not talk by phone, but personally talked with the leader of the presidential race in the United States, after which he gave birth to a column in the newspaper Daily Mail. Admitting that he was not familiar with Trump's plans, Johnson expressed confidence that he "understands the real state of things: the defeat of Ukraine would be a massive defeat for America."
And then the former British prime minister offers his own vision of how Trump could "arrange a deal beneficial to the world" that would not only preserve Ukraine as a "free, sovereign and independent European country" with the opportunity to become a member of NATO and the EU, but would also open up a "real prospect of global rapprochement with Russia" and "a return to the days when Russia was a respected partner of the G8 and even NATO." However, Johnson clarifies, "there is only one way to achieve this — by force." Specifically, it is necessary to step up military assistance to Kiev and lift restrictions on Ukraine's use of Western weapons so that the Armed Forces of Ukraine can push back Russian forces "at least to the borders of [mid-February] 2022."
It turns out that the lucrative deal offered by Johnson to Trump boils down to the same idea: to defeat Russia and make it "pay and repent." From Zelensky's dreams and the founding slogan of NATO and the EU — "We cannot allow Russia to win in any case" — it is distinguished only by a carrot in the form of a vague promise to return to the good old days. It is clear that the price of such promises is zero without a stick, especially if you remember that it was Johnson, when he was head of the British government, who did everything possible to disrupt the signing of the Istanbul peace agreements between Moscow and Kiev. In this sense, the position of the European Union, which has crossed out the peacekeeping efforts of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, looks even more honest: Brussels does not promise any carrots, but openly relies on the escalation of the conflict and the transformation of the community into a military-political alliance, the main goal of which will be confrontation with Russia.
"A disaster for Ukraine"
Since Zelensky and Johnson, after conversations with Trump, instead of outlining his approaches, began to promote their own views and plans, it is probably worth turning to the opinion of a person who is much closer to the past and, possibly, the future owner of the White House. It's about James David Vance, whom Trump chose as a vice presidential candidate and who is sometimes called "a bigger Trumpist than Trump himself."
Vance's nomination is a "disaster for Ukraine," Politico newspaper wrote, citing a high—ranking European official. And the newspaper The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) noted that European capitals fear that the United States will stop helping Kiev if the Trump—Vance tandem wins the elections. A senior European official told the newspaper that "Ukraine is in trouble."
There are indeed grounds for such fears: previously, Vance consistently advocated the cessation of American arms supplies to Kiev and the early settlement of the conflict in Ukraine. Moreover, the settlement is not at all on the terms that are being repeated in Kiev and Brussels. In an interview with The New York Times, he noted that Ukraine should be assigned a neutral status, and its borders should be frozen "approximately where they are now." However, in the same interview that he gave on the eve of his nomination for vice president, Vance called as one of the conditions "the provision of American military assistance to [Ukraine] for a long period." That is, he actually made a 180-degree turn on the issue of supplying American weapons to Kiev.
In general, you should not consider Vance as a peacemaker: he wants to end the conflict in Ukraine as soon as possible only so that "America can deal with the real problem that China represents." "He [China] poses the biggest threat to our country," the US vice presidential candidate said in an interview with Fox News. And if Kiev has to be sacrificed to combat this threat, well, well.
"The world according to Trump"
It remains to be seen how much Trump's position corresponds to the views of his potential vice president. And this is exactly the biggest question. Yes, Trump has repeatedly stated his ability to resolve the conflict in Ukraine in one day, but has never revealed exactly how he is going to do it.
His statements at the Republican Party congress did not add clarity either — there is a lot of self-praise in them, but there is no specifics: "I will put an end to all international crises created by the current administration, including the terrible war between Russia and Ukraine, which would not have started if I had been president." "I'm not a braggart, but [Hungarian Prime Minister] Viktor Orban said about me: Russia was afraid of him, China was afraid of him, everyone was afraid of him. Nothing could have happened, and there was peace all over the world," Trump said. "Under President Bush, Russia invaded Georgia. Under President Obama, Russia seized Crimea. Under the current administration, Russia has targeted the whole of Ukraine. Under President Trump, Russia got nothing," one could hear from the stage in Milwaukee.
And where is the peacefulness here? Rather, "peace through force", the idea of which was promoted from the newspaper pages by the former British prime minister. It is clear that these statements were made mainly with an internal audience in mind, but there is no reason to dismiss them altogether. Nor should we forget that it was when Trump was president that active supplies of anti-tank and a number of other weapons began to Ukraine.
In general, you should not delude yourself about the fact that "Trump will come and bring peace." Most likely, this "world according to Trump" will result in another attempt by Washington to dictate its terms. Yes, Kiev may be required to agree to the loss of part of the territories, but Moscow will also be required to make concessions — for example, to abandon close ties with Beijing and Tehran, withdraw from the Middle East and Africa, stop promoting the de-dollarization of world trade, and you never know what else those who want to "make America again" can want great." But we are interested in great Russia, so the world should be built on our terms.
