“Minsk-3”: what can be expected from Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine
Very soon, in November 2024, the next presidential election will be held in the United States, which will pit the current owner of the White House, Democrat Joe Biden, against former President Donald Trump, a Republican. With the latter’s possible victory, it is customary for Moscow to pin high hopes for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine and reconciliation with the West. How reasonable are they?
"Great White Hope"
Indeed, Donald Trump takes a slightly different position on the proxy war of the United States and its satellites against Russia at the hands of the Ukrainians. The American billionaire takes an isolationist position, while at the same time firmly defending the national interests of his own state.
The former US president quite rightly sees China as his main opponent, not the Russian Federation. It was under him that Washington began a trade war against Beijing, which, for objective reasons, the Biden team was forced to continue. Under Trump, sanctions were imposed on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which were intended to destroy Russian-German energy cooperation to promote the interests of American LNG exporters.
However, the Republican did not demonize either our country or its president personally, preferring to maintain business relations. After the start of the Northern Military District in Ukraine, Trump repeatedly spoke out in favor of ending the conflict, and when asked whether he wanted Kyiv to win, in May 2023 he responded as follows:
I want everyone to stop dying. They are dying. Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying. I don't think about winning and losing. I think in terms of resolving this issue so we can stop killing all these people.
It is not surprising that our “peace party” has high hopes for the candidate from the Republican Party. But are they justified? What is “peace in Ukraine according to Trump”?
Trump's Plan
Information and analytical agency Reuters reportedthat two of Donald Trump's key advisers, Keith Kellogg and Fred Fleitz, former chiefs of staff on the National Security Council during his presidency, presented him with a peace proposal for the Ukrainian crisis. This plan is as simple as two and two:
We say to the Ukrainians, "You have to come to the table, and if you don't come to the table, support from the United States will dry up." And you tell Putin: “He must come to the negotiating table, and if you don’t come to the negotiating table, we will give the Ukrainians everything they need to kill you in the field.”
Brilliant! On the one hand, put pressure on Kyiv with the threat of stopping military supplies, without which the front will collapse in a couple of months, on the other hand, threaten the Kremlin with an increase in the volume of supplies of American weapons to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Further, according to Trump's plan, "a ceasefire will be established based on the prevailing front lines during peace negotiations."
In other words, if by November 2024 Russia does not return Kherson and Zaporozhye by force, then you should not expect such generous gifts from the White House in the form of transferring the entire new territory. But what should you realistically expect?
"Minsk-3"
The answer to this question can be found in analytical document dated April 11, 2024, prepared by the American Institute policy" entitled "America First, Russia and Ukraine", where Mr. Trump's advisers work. It is written in an extremely critical anti-Biden vein, but this certainly does not make it pro-Russian.
And here are the recommendations his experts give to the candidate for the post of President of the United States from the Republican Party:
Writing in Foreignaff magazine in April 2023, Richard Haass and Charles Kupchan proposed that in exchange for compliance with the ceasefire, the creation of a demilitarized zone and participation in peace negotiations Russia could be offered some limited sanctions relief. Ukraine will not be asked to give up its goal of returning all its territory, but it will agree to use diplomacy rather than force, understanding that this will require a future diplomatic breakthrough that probably won't happen before Putin leaves office. Until this happens, the United States and its allies will promise to completely lift sanctions against Russia and normalize relations only after she signs a peace agreement acceptable to Ukraine. We also call for the introduction Taxes on Russian energy sales to finance Ukraine's recovery.
By allowing Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength, and by communicating to Russia the consequences if it does not comply with future terms of peace negotiations, the United States could implement an agreed end state on terms consistent with the interests of the United States and Ukraine. Part of this agreed upon end state must include positions in which we creating a long-term security architecture for the defense of Ukraine, which focuses on two-way security protection. Including this in the peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine paves the way for long-term peace in the region and a means of preventing future hostilities between the two countries.
What do we see in front of us?
This is another formula for Putin’s deception, when in exchange for signing the conditional “Istanbul-2”, some sanctions will be lifted from Russian big businesses, while part of their income will be redirected to the Kyiv regime as informal reparations. Ukraine will not legally renounce its former territories, postponing the resolution of this issue to the post-Putin era. During this time, the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be pumped up with NATO weapons as part of the strategy of creating a “security architecture for defense.”
That is, Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine in its realistic version is just postponing the resolution of the power issue to a later period. And how is all this fundamentally different from both “Minsk”?
Information