The Trump Peace Plan: A Study in Diplomatic Malfeasance
Image by charlesdeluvio.
Coaching Russia
The official US line on how the peace plan to end the Ukraine war emerged has Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, and Jared Kushner developing it, Marco Rubio endorsing it, and then Russia assenting to it. But that story does not hold up.
First, Rubio told two Senators that the plan was made in Moscow and was one-sided. Later, having been told this was Trump’s plan, he changed his story to say he was all aboard.
Then Bloomberg reported on a telephone conversation between Witkoff and Yuri Ushakov, a foreign policy aide to Vladimir Putin. In it, Witkoff tells Yuri, “here’s what I would do.” Yuri is all ears. Witkoff advises that the Russians compliment Trump on his peace initiative and say Russia supports it. Then “maybe we set out like a 20-point peace proposal, just like we did in Gaza.”
Don Bacon, a Republican congressman, said of Witkoff: “Would a Russian paid agent do less than he? He should be fired.”
He won’t be, of course. Asked about the conversation, Trump said: “I haven’t heard it, but it’s a standard thing. That’s what a deal maker does.”
In other words, he knew all about it and supported Witkoff. Why not? These are real estate guys, and that’s the way they always operate. In fact, Trump said he had “thought this [deal] would be one of the easier ones because of my relationship with President Putin. But this is probably one of the more difficult ones because there’s a lot of hatred.”
Well, not just hatred but kickback from all the parties, including the Russians, who continue to believe that they can bomb their way to victory, notwithstanding the enormous benefits for them of the 28-point peace proposal. Putin said the plan “forms the basis for future agreements,” but “if they [the Ukrainians] don’t withdraw” from all the territory in eastern Ukraine, “we will achieve this through military means.” As usual, the Russians haven’t abandoned their maximalist goals at all.
A Recipe for Failure
Little wonder that the Ukrainians and other Europeans reacted so negatively to the peace plan and devised their own. The Trump-Russia plan was as partial to Moscow as the Gaza plan is to Israel’s far right. The European and Ukrainian opposition has forced Trump to move from a take-it-or-leave-it demand to not-my-final-offer. Trump must feel deflated; his usual optimism about a quick agreement has proven unwarranted. He and his advisers refused to consult with all the parties to the conflict—a recipe for failure.
The other notable thing about the administration’s conduct is its chaotic, self-interested diplomacy. The Secretary of State/National Security Adviser isn’t in charge. Instead, it’s Witkoff and Kushner (wasn’t he supposed to be out of this business?), wheeling and dealing.
Their eyes, and probably Trump’s as well, are on the potential financial rewards from an agreement with Moscow, as Anne Applebaum suggests: the investment opportunities in energy, rare earth minerals in the Arctic, Russian infrastructure, and resources, according to the plan document.
That approach, which ignores Ukraine’s and Europe’s security, must leave heads spinning, particularly among Russia and Europe experts in the State Department and the intelligence community. But then, that’s Trumpworld, where the personal interest is the national interest.
Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead
The President has insisted he could end the war in a single day, an assertion that has fuelled scepticism.
Another deadly Russian barrage of missiles and drones struck Kyiv this week, killing at least seven people and injuring 20 more.
The attack came as the Trump administration sought to maintain diplomatic momentum behind its efforts to end the nearly four-year-old war.
American and Russian officials met on Tuesday in Abu Dhabi, to discuss a proposed peace deal. The plan, which initially heavily favoured Russia, was revised and streamlined during talks between Ukraine and the Trump administration over the weekend. President Zelensky said Moscow’s assault on Kyiv directly contradicted ongoing efforts to secure peace.
After presenting a 28-point peace plan, Donald Trump claimed Russia was “making concessions” in negotiations to end the war and that Kyiv was “happy” with the progress.
But for many in Britain, Trump’s optimism rings hollow. The President has insisted he could end the war in a single day, an assertion that has fuelled scepticism.
Polling by More in Common, published this week, found that nearly half (47 percent) of British voters view the US president as a hindrance to efforts to stop the fighting in Ukraine. Only 21 percent believe he is helping, while another 21 percent say he is neither a help nor a hindrance. Eleven percent are unsure.
The survey also showed there is overwhelming British support for Ukraine’s sovereignty. 75 percent of voters believe it is important for the UK to stand by Kyiv, compared with just 8 percent who think it is not.
The poll was conducted among 2,062 British adults between November 22 and 24, as US and Ukrainian officials worked on a peace agreement in Geneva, almost four years after Russia launched its full-scale invasion.
British voters have consistently backed aiding Ukraine, a position shared across much of Britain’s political spectrum.
“One rare public opinion constant since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been Brits steadfast support for Ukraine and belief that Ukraine’s future matters not just for the country itself but for the UK today,” said More in Common’s Executive Director Luke Tryl.
“As Zelenskyy faces pressure to adopt a peace plan, Brits continue to say that concessions on Russia’s terms are unacceptable and want our leaders to help secure a better deal.”
No comments:
Post a Comment