Can Trump Mediate a Successful End to the War in Ukraine?

 

Can Trump Mediate a Successful End to the War in Ukraine?

Why Should Putin Settle When Trump’s Medling is Already Helping Him?

“But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective…. We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine.” 

Newly confirmed Dept of Defense head, Pete Hegseth, in a speech during a trip to NATO’s headquarters in Brussels.

I’d like to begin this blog with a simple analysis of the US’ moral and ethical failures, all of which play into Putin’s view of what’s possible. The notion that world order requires respect of other nations’ territorial integrity, a United Nations principle that we have espoused repeatedly, goes by the wayside as the United States tells the world: 1. It intends to own Gaza after all of its Palestinian residents are displaced, one way or the other. 2. If Panama does not cut a favorable deal (better than that accorded to every other nation) for the passage of US ships though the canal, we just may have to use military force to take it back. 3. Inasmuch as we see Greenland (a Danish autonomous territory) as essential to our national security, if NATO ally Denmark with not sell it to us (both Greenland residents and Danish citizens uniformly oppose such a sale), we may be forced to use military force to seize that land.

As China pretty makes its own arguments why it would be justified in using military force to annex the currently independent Republic of China (“Taiwan”) and as Russia is already engaged in a full-on war to make an angry and fiercely resistant Ukraine just one more part of Russia (despite having entered into a treaty with Ukraine to respect its sovereignty), we are hardly in a position to mediate and settle the raging conflict between Moscow and Kyiv or act as a trustworthy Taiwanese ally if and when China invades. We have other moral issues that plague our policies.

For example, our moral high ground on immigration sweeps is hardly reflective of evangelical concepts of tolerance and kindness (the essential thrust of the New Testament), and the Catholic Church is even more obviously opposed to current Trump “detain and deport” policies. As a purportedly practicing Roman Catholic, VP JD Vance has attempted to justify such policies under a Catholic notion of applying “Christian love” with intensity based on pragmatic proximity (“ordo amoris,” love those within your immediate circle more with decreasing obligations to those farther away). “Pope Francis appears to have rebuked Vice President JD Vance over his interpretation of Catholic theology as the pontiff condemned the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown… In a remarkable step, the leader of the Catholic Church addressed the controversial program in a letter Tuesday [2/11] to U.S. bishops, warning that mass deportations ‘will end badly’ if based on force.” Huffington Post, February 11th.

So bottom line, who are we to mediate disputes when our own practices generally align with predatory aggressors, a “might makes right” approach, when trying to contain that form of aggression? But if these elements do not disqualify our holding our selves out as “neutral” arbiters, you also have to ask yourself why Putin would need to compromise given our reality… and what’s in it for Putin anyway.

First, note that Putin has stamped out opposition to his war within Ukraine, both by torture and imprisonment for any dissenters and by his total control of all forms of media in Russia. His economy may be in shambles, but Russians are used to suffering for state mandates. While territorial gains are still leaning, however slowly, towards Russia, Putin sees clear signs that Trump is more likely to erode Ukraine further. Emma Burrows, writing for the February 11th Associated Press, notes: “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says Putin wants to deal directly with Trump, cutting out Kyiv. That runs counter to the Biden administration’s position that echoed Zelensky’s call of ‘Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.’… He suggested any such peace deal would send the dangerous signal to authoritarian leaders in China, North Korea and Iran that adventurism pays.

“Putin appears to expect Trump to undermine European resolve on Ukraine. Likening Europe’s leaders to Trump’s lapdogs, he said Sunday [2/9] they will soon be ‘sitting obediently at their master’s feet and sweetly wagging their tails’ as the U.S. president quickly brings order with his ‘character and persistence.’… Trump boasts of his deal-making prowess but Putin will not easily surrender what he considers Russia’s ancestral lands in Ukraine or squander a chance to punish the West and undermine its alliances and security by forcing Kyiv into a policy of neutrality.

“Trump may want a legacy as a peacemaker, but ‘history won’t look kindly on him if he’s the man who gives this all away,’ said Kim Darroch, British ambassador to the U.S. from 2016-19. Former North Atlantic Treaty Organization spokesperson Oana Lungescu said a deal favoring Moscow would send a message of ‘American weakness.’” European nations are already supplying sophisticated jet aircraft (French and US) from their reserves and are preparing for go-it-alone continue support for Kyiv. They genuinely believe that former Soviet countries (e.g., the Baltic nations, members of NATO) and even NATO members once part of the Soviet bloc (like Poland), would be at risk from future Russian incursions, such that the protecting Ukraine is an existential necessity for Europe.

Burrows continues: “Putin hopes Trump will ‘get bored’ or distracted with another issue, said Boris Bondarev, a former Russian diplomat in Geneva who quit his post after the invasion… Russian experts point to Trump’s first term when they said Putin realized such meetings achieved little… One was a public relations victory for Moscow in Helsinki where Trump sided with Putin instead of his own intelligence agencies on whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election. Another was in Singapore in 2019 with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un when he failed to reach a deal to halt Pyongyang’s nuclear program.” How far will Trump go if he simply faces another peace-making failure? In answer to the title question, the simple answer is “no.” Putin is a masterful negotiator against the likes of Trump. Flattery and simply “declaring victory” in a losing deal are Trump trademarks.

I’m Peter Dekom, and as Trump struggles to impose a unitary American autocracy in the US based on ultra-loyalty from every American, can he remotely extend that powerlessness to his overseas peacemaking… and can he do anything without China-entrepreneur Elon Musk’s approval?