Oleksandr Khara: Three Words That Mislead Everyone

The conversation between Trump and Putin is not about "negotiations", "peace" and "security guarantees".

US President Donald Trump held phone conversations with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky, causing a wide resonance in political and expert circles. Assessments of the dialogue and subsequent statements range from harsh criticism to restrained neutrality.

What has really happened? Journalists of Charter97.org spoke about this with Ukrainian diplomat and political scientist, expert of the Center for Defence Strategies Oleksandr Khara:

— If you remove the emotions, you can say that nothing new has happened. The statements of Trump and his entourage simply materialized in a conversation with Putin.

Naturally, there are some unpleasant moments. Just the other day, The Economist published an interview with Zelensky, where he said that there were contacts with Trump and his team, but Ukraine is waiting for specific ideas on the process and positions. Zelensky has repeatedly stressed that first the United States and Ukraine need to develop a joint position, and then talk with Putin, and from a position of strength, implying that the United States will help Ukraine with weapons. Although it didn't go through. In fact, Trump decided to act behind the back of Ukraine.

It is also worth recalling Trump's reaction to the journalists' question about whether he perceives Ukraine as an equal partner. He actually evaded the answer, which, in fact, already shows his attitude to Ukraine. And the third point is Joseph Biden's formula "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine". In fact, this formula has come to an end.

On the other hand, what happened is not the end of the world, Ukraine is not doomed to surrender the territory and agree to all the "wants" of Putin, whether it is Crimea or something else. This is a new reality for Ukraine and for Europe, especially given Pete Hegset's statement that the United States will reduce its obligations to Europe, and Europe will have to take more responsibility for its security and, accordingly, pay more for supporting Ukraine.

What happened was logical and predictable, it was a trajectory that was visible in advance. Naturally, it is unpleasant for Ukraine, Europeans and friends of Ukraine in the United States, both Republicans and Democrats, who hoped that Trump would act from a position of strength, according to the "peace through strength" formula. People are well aware that what is happening in Ukraine will not remain in Ukraine. If we are forced to surrender, it will send a message to all nations that the United States is not a reliable security partner.

The second important point, which is often forgotten, is that only nuclear weapons can keep aggressive neighbors from attacking. Nuclear weapons are a trump card that allows you to act more confidently. In the context of nuclear disarmament of Ukraine and the unwillingness of the West, especially the United States, to take Ukraine into NATO, which would be a guarantee of security, this will push different countries to deploy nuclear weapons on their territory. For example, Poland has already offered this to the United States.

Perhaps other countries — Egypt or Saudi Arabia — will think about creating their own nuclear arsenal. Even in Japan, a traditionally pacifist country, they have already begun to discuss this topic, although there is no public support yet, but they are already beginning to say that the situation has changed dramatically, so we need to think about how to ensure our security.

— Trump is called a tough negotiator. But why, even before real negotiations begin, does he dismiss arguments that could, in a sense, be used as bargaining chips? Why declare that Ukraine will not join NATO and that the Russian-occupied territories are lost?

— Firstly, I think this is a myth about his toughness in negotiations. So far, we have seen his toughness towards allies — Canada, Mexico, the European Union. For example, the last tariff war: 25% duties on metals from Canada and Mexico, and only 10% on goods from China. But we have not heard tough rhetoric against China and the Russian Federation.

Secondly, I think that he so publicly stated these parameters and, in fact, handed over two chips that could be used in bargaining with Russia — NATO membership and the return of territories — because in his worldview this conflict does not matter much and does not affect the interests of the United States. Apparently, he is captivated by the illusions of Russian propaganda, which claims that Joseph Biden is to blame for everything, or the collective West, which dragged Ukraine into NATO, which pushed Russia to war.

Therefore, it is worth paying attention to his worldview, which does not correspond to the real situation. Many say that NATO membership is the root cause, but we see how Finland and Sweden became members of NATO, and this was a strategic defeat for Putin. With these two new countries in the Alliance, it has become easier to defend the Baltic States. And the second, even more important, is that Finland borders the Kola Peninsula, where the nuclear fist of the Russian Federation is located, which, in fact, threatens the United States. It is also an outlet to the Arctic, but there is no war there.

I'm not even talking about the fact that only under Putin there was a war in Russia, that is, in Chechnya, there was a war in Georgia with the illegal occupation of territories. Putin fought to the last in Syria, now in Libya, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Burkina Faso, its intelligence services and so-called private military companies have effectively brought to power the people he needs.

Roughly speaking, if NATO is a problem, then why is Putin constantly fighting in countries where NATO has never been present? Unfortunately, Joseph Biden is to blame for Trump's worldview, although it is clear that Russia's war against Ukraine began with the annexation of Crimea when Barack Obama was president.

I agree that there is something to criticize Obama for, because he, together with Merkel, is the architect of the catastrophe in Europe. In this whole situation, they did nothing to help Ukraine, and did nothing until 2022. It was only after the full-scale invasion that Germany changed its position and began to supply us with weapons. Before that, there was an embargo, and Russia was supplied with weapons, equipment, and machines for the defence industry. That is, there was no embargo, let alone economic cooperation.

— Several European countries said that they are ready to support Kyiv further, even to strengthen support. Can Europe change the course of negotiations on Ukraine on its own if they go in the wrong direction?

— It should be said that the words "security guarantees", "negotiations" and "peace" can be misleading. The security guarantees that Pete Hegset spoke about imply that Europe must help Ukraine. Ukraine must remain as a sovereign and independent state, so there must be powerful security guarantees.

But it is misleading because real security assurances can be provided either by Ukraine's nuclear status, or assurances from nuclear powers such as the US, France and the UK, or by NATO membership. The fifth article of NATO allows conventional or nuclear forces to deter Russia, and in the event of an attack — to fight with the Russian Federation. That is, "security guarantees" disappear.

Negotiations are possible only when other options have been exhausted, and a compromise must be sought. Russia believes that it wins politically and diplomatically, is ready to continue the war in the current format, sacrificing people. This is not a negotiation, because Russia actually wants the surrender of Ukraine, despite the fact that it cannot achieve any success by military means in the near future.

And the third is peace. Peace is not just the absence of war, but an agreement that ensures the long-term absence of conflict and takes into account the factor of justice. This requires institutions, procedures and mechanisms for resolving conflicts between the parties in order to pre-empt the next war. Definitely, now Russia is not ready to go for such a form and recognize Ukraine as a sovereign state. Therefore, when people talk about peace, negotiations and security guarantees, in fact, they mislead themselves and others, because they use these terms very widely, not in essence.

We are back in cell number one, the very first step of 2022. Unlike in 2022, now the Americans have actually curtailed their leadership, but there are Europeans who are ready to help us further. Russia's war against Ukraine is aggressive and unjust, so they are well aware that it is in their security interests to stop Putin and prevent him from getting even closer to Europe by threatening it.

Therefore, naturally, the Europeans will play their part. But not all Europeans, rather, it is worth talking about a coalition of the willing. These are the countries that feel most threatened by Russia: the eastern flank, the Baltic countries, Poland, Romania, Northern Europe, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, to some extent Germany (let's see how they will hold elections there and whether their strategic position will change), and partly France.

The remaining countries have different levels of support, and it is difficult to see them ready to either increase assistance to Ukraine or send their soldiers in order to separate the parties if a ceasefire agreement is reached. So yes, the Europeans will support us, someone after some time, when there will be a cessation fire, will reduce its assistance, and someone will continue as promised, because it coincides with the national interests of the countries.

You can support the website Charter97.org

MULTI-CURRENCY ACCOUNT FOR ASSISTANCE:

Bank's name: Bank Millennium S.A.
Address: ul. Stanislawa Zaryna, 2A, 02-593, Warszawa
IBAN: PL97116022020000000216711123
SWIFT: BIGBPLPW
Name of the account holder: Fundacja “KARTA ‘97”
Purpose/title of payment: Donation for statuary aims

You can contact us by the e-mail [email protected]