If the
initial 28-plan program developed by the Trump- and Putin-led governments,
which gave Russia nearly everything it wanted in its war against Ukraine is any
indication, the United States is on the verge of rewarding the naked aggression
of Russia against its neighboring country. Given the current occupant of the
White House this should surprise no one. When Russia initially invaded Ukraine
in February of 2022, then former President Trump declared the unprovoked act
“wonderful.” There is a long history of Trump’s involvement with Russia
extending to the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia and the machinations of
his 2016 campaign manager, Paul Manafort’s lobbying for Russian favored
politicians in Ukraine. Trump’s emissary to Ukraine, Rudy Giuliani acted to
remove the highly acclaimed Marie
Yovanovitch as Ambassador to Ukraine because she obstructed efforts to
get negative information on the Biden’s during the spring of 2019 in
anticipation of the 2020 Presidential election.
Throughout
his first administration, President Trump sang the praises of the Russian
President and issued nary a word against that country’s military incursions
into of eastern Ukraine extending back to about 2014. While the precise source
of Trump’s admiration for Putin is unclear, it has remained persistent. Rather
than blaming accused international war criminal, Vladimar Putin for the war, he
put the onus on Ukraine for not making a deal that would have formally ceded Crimea
to Russia as well as eastern Ukrainian territories. There may well be other
factors that have gone into the current plan devised by Russia and the U.S. Nonetheless,
I can only conclude that it has deep roots in Trump’s decade‑long relationships
with Russian oligarchs and officials and his embrace of what he views as
Putin’s masterful leadership.
Trump’s
pro-Russian orientation needs to be viewed in sharp contrast to that of his
predecessor, President Joseph Biden in the pivotal role he played in organizing
an extensive coalition of European powers to support Ukraine with substantial
military aid to maintain that nation’s independence. President, Volodymyr
Zelensky has led Ukraine in a truly heroic battle against the Russian onslaught.
With a consistent U.S. policy across administrations this might have resulted
in an ultimate reclamation of their territories in the east, with, perhaps, the
proviso of establishing an independent city in Crimea (taken in 2014) based on
the outcome of a legitimate referendum. If not that extensive, at least a much
better outcome than what is currently on the table.
The
U.S. policy under Biden could be critiqued for its over hesitancy. However, in its
broad framework, it was the right stance not only for Ukraine, but for the
defense of democracy throughout eastern Europe, which would have been severely
threatened with a Russian victory in 2022. Trump’s conceit is based on his
unrelenting desire to radically upend Biden’s policy by pulling the U.S. out of
its leadership role in supporting the right of Ukraine to maintain its own
independence against the colonial aggrandizement of Russia. It is also
reflected in President Trump’s disdain of Europe’s continuing support of that
beleaguered nation and his obsession to legitimize Russia under Putin in his dismissal
of its war of aggression against its neighbor as of little account.
The
sad reality is that without highly focused U.S. leadership, it would be
difficult for the European powers to continue to support Ukraine on its own. The
initial 28-point plan initially established between Russia and the U.S., has been
partly modified due to the persistence of Ukraine and its European partners to
push back against it. However, so long as Trump leads the U.S. toward a plan
that cedes to Russia substantial territories in eastern Ukraine, the reality on
the ground speaks to inevitable limiting conditions. New York Times columnist,
Tom Friedman refers to the need to accept a “dirty deal,” as a best-case
scenario, as opposed to a “filthy deal,” which would have been something like
the 28-point plan.
The
“dirty deal” would allow Russia to keep only the current territory it has
stolen and not one iota of land under current Ukrainian control. In Friedman’s
scenario, the European nations and the U.S. would provide an iron-clad
guarantees for Ukraine’s security. In my enlargement on Friedman’s parameters,
there would be no limitation on the size of its army; in addition, Ukraine
would possess the right to join the European Union, and reparations would be drawn
from Russian resources to rebuild its war-torn infrastructure.
The
dirty deal may be the best outcome given current political realities and even
that would be a tough sell under the present circumstances. However, that would
not have been necessary if Trump had the intellectual competence, wisdom, and
humility to build on Biden’s leadership to place unified, maximum pressure
against Russia’s immoral invasion. Such a policy could have been sharpened
under a Trump administration singularly poised on pushing Russia out of
Ukraine.
In
rejecting such a bi-partisan vision, the Trump administration is not only on
the verge of jeopardizing the independence and integrity of Ukraine and
betraying its alliance with Europe. It is rewarding Russia for its brutal war
of aggression and legitimizing Putin, who by all rights, should be hauled to
the Hague and tried as the international war criminal that he is.
If
there is ever a query as to who lost Ukraine, we will know where the blame
lies. While the shame would rightly belong to the Trump administration for such
a craven betrayal, the stain of promises made and promises broken will remain
on the United States of America for a good, long time.
Comments
Post a Comment