Ukraine: what would a US-Russian deal entail?
Donald Trump has announced that Washington and Moscow have agreed on terms for ending the war in Ukraine: "I think we have a deal with Russia," the US president said on Wednesday, adding that Russia was making a big concession by agreeing to end the war now rather than seizing the whole country. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also said that Russia was in principle ready to conclude an agreement. Trump had previously lambasted Zelensky for refusing to cede on his country's right to keep Crimea.
Just a pseudo peace
For La Libre Belgique it's not clear what goal the US is pursuing with its merciless stance:
“Donald Trump is not just imposing silence and submission on the Ukrainians. ... Bowing to Russian weapons means legitimising future armed attacks on Eastern Europe or even Taiwan. A quick but unfair solution would shake the world's very foundations. It's difficult to understand what the US hopes to gain from such chaos other than a pseudo peace that won't last long. Even if Trump already sees himself winning a Nobel Peace Prize, he's not promising peace but a ceasefire that smacks of capitulation.”
Washington's tactics no longer work
Ukraine and Europe needn't fret about the US's threat to withdraw as mediator, Political scientist Maria Zolkina explains on Facebook:
“Trump's tactics in his first three months in office with regard to Ukraine and Russia – rushing in, exerting pressure and conducting a blitzkrieg operation – have failed. Ironically, Washington doesn't understand that it's impossible to blackmail Ukraine and Europe by threatening a US withdrawal from the settlement process, because Kyiv, London, Paris, Warsaw and Berlin all have no doubt that Trump will withdraw from the process in any case - even if Ukraine agrees to all conditions.”
Distrust on all sides
Author Carina Cockrell-Ferre doubts that any binding agreements are possible with Trump. She writes on Facebook:
“Trump is a radical. He has gone back to the beginning of evolution and abolished all rules. As a concept. What is the danger here? ... By abolishing the rules you abolish all business activities, because these are unthinkable without trust in agreements. And trust is unthinkable when rules and contractual obligations are abolished. What kind of truce are we talking about here? A ceasefire is an agreement - and an agreement means trust. And now Putin and Trump have created a situation where no one can trust anyone anymore. No one. And a Hobbesian war of all against all begins.”
We don't want another Munich Agreement
For La Repubblica, the deal would be a dictated peace:
“Firstly, the official recognition of Crimea as Russian: a blatant violation of international law. Secondly, the de facto recognition by the US of the other Ukrainian territories occupied by Moscow. Thirdly, no Nato for Kyiv (but yes to EU membership). Fourthly, US control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Fifthly, a deal on the exploitation of Ukrainian minerals and rare earths by the US. Sixthly, a drastic easing of US sanctions against Russia including cooperation in the energy sector. ... Putin will simply be asked to withdraw Russia from some occupied territories, for example around Kherson, thus restoring the Ukrainians' access to the Dnipro. ... This is not enough in this new darkest hour in Europe. Let's hope that this won't be another Munich Agreement.”
A plan that reflects the military reality
Aktuálně.cz sees the situation as follows:
“The de facto (if not de jure) abandonment of Crimea and the territories currently occupied by Russia is a confirmation of the reality on the battlefield. ... Few people today believe that these territories can be liberated by force of arms. Even the dream of membership of the North Atlantic Alliance has long since become utterly unrealistic. The minerals deal is clearly intended as a kind of repayment for American aid, but it could also mean American investment and therefore some form of American presence in the country - depending on the details of the agreement, which has already been revised several times.”
A dangerous signal to imperialist autocrats
The implementation of this "peace plan" would be disastrous as far as international law is concerned, stresses Die Presse:
“It's highly problematic that by recognising Crimea as 'Russian', the most powerful nation in the world would decriminalise Moscow's land theft and upgrade it to a legally valid practice. A breach of international law? No problem for 'dealmaker' Trump! The consequences could be disastrous: principles of international law which many autocrats with imperialist ambitions have hesitated to disregard until now would probably be demolished for good. And finally: without security guarantees for Ukraine, a shoddy deal would be worthless anyway. ... Absolutely nothing would stand in the way of Putin attacking again at some point.”
Romania must block this deal
G4Media.ro warns of the consequences for Europe:
“If Russia controls the Black Sea, is 'rewarded' with a quarter of Ukraine's territory and has turned its economy into a war economy, what's to stop it from attacking Romania a few years from now? High-ranking EU diplomats and military officials warn every month that Russia may attack a Nato country within the next five years to test the alliance and destabilise the EU. This is why Romania must now do everything it can diplomatically and politically to prevent the deal proposed by Donald Trump from being accepted.”
Time to end this war
Trud sees an increasing willingness to make concessions among the Ukrainian population:
“Zelensky also has to deal with the weariness and despair of his compatriots, who are increasingly willing to make further concessions, including territorial ones. These are not possible without a referendum, according to the Ukrainian constitution, but the latest polls show that a third of Ukrainians are now willing to do so, compared to less than ten percent in 2022. ... The end of the war is now achievable at the negotiating table. Hardly anyone still believes that Ukraine can defeat Russia - not even with the help of its allies.”
A compromise is still achievable
Echo24 tries to look at the issue beyond black and white perspectives:
“Ukrainians probably realise that retaking Crimea is currently beyond their possibilities. During the Istanbul talks in March 2022, they were willing to postpone the Crimea issue for 15 years. It is not uncommon in the world for officially recognised borders not to correspond to real ones. For example, most of the world agrees with the 'One China' policy, but in reality Taiwan is treated as an independent state. The border between North and South Korea is merely a ceasefire line. And the same applies to the border between India and Pakistan in Kashmir: both countries lay claim to the entire province.”