223
After the election of Donald Trump as the president of the USA, the most worrying thing is that he will impose an unfavorable agreement with Russia on Ukraine, which will turn into a disaster for the whole world.
This is stated in the editorial of The Economist.
The Kremlin dictator has already stated that he may be ready to freeze military operations on the front line. But he demands that the West lift sanctions, and Ukraine renounce NATO membership, be demilitarized, "denazified" and formally neutral.
"If Trump had supported it, Putin would have achieved most of his military goals, and Ukraine would have suffered a catastrophic defeat. Moreover, the president of Russia does not respect any piece of paper. He would hope that post-war Ukraine, engulfed in internal strife and accusations against the West, would fall into his hands. If this does not happen, he can seize more territory by force. A self-proclaimed guardian of the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, he could easily come up with an excuse," the newspaper writes.
But it is encouraging that such a deal would also be a public defeat for America and a humiliation for Trump. Therefore, he will seek to conclude an agreement that will give Ukraine security guarantees at least until the end of his presidential term. And for this, the US has the necessary leverage.
For example, the White House can threaten the Kremlin, which will provide Ukraine with even more deadly weapons, and the Russian economy will shrivel under the pressure of even tougher sanctions. And sooner or later, Putin will have to take these threats seriously.
"Restoring the borders of 1991 is an impossible dream. Morally and legally, all this land belongs to Ukraine, but it does not have enough soldiers, weapons and ammunition to take it back. Instead, the goal should be to create conditions for the prosperity of Ukraine in the territory it currently controls," the authors of the article believe.
And this requires stability and reconstruction, which directly depend on Ukraine's security guarantees, which will be the main topic of the negotiations.
"The Economist claims that the best way to protect Ukraine would be its accession to NATO. Membership would help prevent its instability... and Putin's achievement of his ultimate goal of destabilizing and dominating Europe. It would also bring Europe's largest, most innovative and battle-hardened army and defense industry to the Alliance — something Trump might like, because then NATO would need fewer American soldiers," the authors of the article note.
And although Ukraine's membership in NATO complicates the question of what to do with the occupied territories in the light of collective defense obligations (Article 5), there is an answer to it.
"The guarantee should not extend to the parts of Ukraine currently occupied by Russia, just as it did not extend to East Germany when West Germany joined in 1955. Troops from other NATO countries may not need to be based in Ukraine in peacetime, as was the case when Norway joined in 1949," the publication recalled historical precedents.
At the same time, some countries, such as Great Britain, France and Germany (if a new chancellor is elected), may agree to deploy their troops in Ukraine to deter the Russian Federation. This would be an "elegant solution" for which only formal support from Trump would be required.
A ceasefire would provide two alternative scenarios for the future of Ukraine. If the negotiations end as Putin wants, Ukraine will lose the interest of the West and "rot", and Russia will increase its military potential. But with strong Western support, Ukraine could use the cessation of hostilities to rebuild its economy, modernize its state system, and create strong conditions to deter Russian aggression. And the main task of future negotiations is to ensure that this scenario prevails over its gloomy alternative.
