Gordon L. Weil
President Trump’s view is that Ukraine has lost the war with
Russia and ought to surrender or lose U.S. support, making its ultimate defeat
even worse.
Ukraine’s view is that, while it will negotiate for peace, it
will never give up.
In his desire for a rapid end to hostilities, even if it only
yields a tenuous ceasefire, Trump is obviously unaware of both international law
and Europe’s history with Russia aggression.
A ceasefire is a starting point in negotiations, but Trump has little
interest in the details of the deal. For
him, a ceasefire is peace.
A basic definition in international law applies to the U.S.
proposals. There are certain rules that
have been generally accepted by almost all countries, often in treaties, that
are the real body of international law. Beyond
that, the term is often thrown around carelessly.
Part of the generally agreed rules are the four conditions
that define a nation-state.
1. It must have
sovereignty, able to defend itself and make decisions for itself.
2. It must have
territory, defined by borders accepted by other nation-states.
3. It must have a
population that shares in values, whether ethnic or civic or both.
4. It must have a
government, capable of making decisions for the nation-state.
Trump, who rewrites American constitutional understandings
and the world’s trade rules, believes he can strip a nation of characteristics
that will result in its disappearance as a state. Ukraine, which meets these international standards,
is threatened.
On this point Europe (except for Hungary) splits with the
U.S. Many countries there, having lost their
nationhood to Nazi Germany in World War II and believing its outcome ruled such
threats illegal for good, have opposed Trump’s proposals for a Russia-Ukraine
agreement.
Trump’s original 28-point proposal included several points
that would undermine Ukraine’s status as a nation-state. Ukraine would voluntarily turn over to Russia
some national territory still under its control, cede the territory seized by
Russia, refrain from seeking NATO membership, cap the size of its armed forces,
and hold national elections within 100 days.
These proposals would remove sovereign powers from Ukraine. Because Russia would make no parallel
commitments, it could readily overpower Ukraine to make it a satellite. While the U.S. might pledge to defend Ukraine,
its waffling on its NATO mutual defense commitment could worry Kyiv. Russia would gain the buffer it wants with
NATO and could expand its influence.
Trump also implied that, in addition to staying out of NATO,
Ukraine’s joining the EU could be questioned.
He also proposed that Russia be invited back into the G-7 group. The Europeans responded that these are
matters for NATO, the EU and G-7, not for an agreement between Ukraine and
Russia (or Trump and Putin).
No peace agreement will return Crimea and other Russian
occupied parts of the country to Ukraine control. But Ukraine looks to international law for an
answer, likely unknown to Trump. It’s
about recognition.
Together with other countries, Ukraine could recognize the de
facto control (control in-fact) by Russia of occupied territory, but refuse
to recognize de jure control (control by right) of it. In that way, it could avoid taking constitutional
action required to cede territory, while accepting current reality and keeping
the door open for a later resolution.
As U.S.-Ukraine negotiations were under way, Sweden announced
that it would never recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea and other territory. The statement made clear that Trump could not
sweep away Ukraine’s status as a nation-state, because other countries would
not go along.
Trump reportedly thought that Ukraine was slowly losing
territory to Russia. He also believed
that the Zelinskyy government was weakened by corruption. Both developments would force the Ukraine
president to give way to Russian demands.
He missed the degree of Ukraine’s commitment to its status as a nation-state.
A member of the Ukraine parliamentary opposition dismissed
this belief. “His problems don’t impact our ability to conduct the talks,
even if the American side may mistakenly think so.” A German observer commented that, if
Zelenskyy accepted the Russo-American proposal, “he would not be president
anymore when he comes home.”
A Ukraine official in the negotiations offered a veiled analogy
to Trump’s hard push for a deal and for the Nobel Peace Prize: “We were
not sitting in the Netflix headquarters writing scripts that will be
Oscar-nominated.” Trump mistakenly sought
acclaim like he received for his multi-point Gaza plan.
Putin wants to turn Ukraine into a satellite, relenting only
if the price becomes too high or the U.S. gets tough. Trump wants an end to
armed conflict regardless of what would follow and ignoring Ukraine’s future as
a nation-state.
If Trump succeeds, Putin would have won his war. And Trump
would have reshaped the law of nations.
No comments:
Post a Comment