Trump realizes Ukraine issue needs to be addressed directly with Ukraine

I carefully re-read Boris Johnson's article and came to conclusions that differ from the initial emotional reaction.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy's phone conversation with Donald Trump and Boris Johnson's July 19 article in the Daily Mail outlining his plan to end the war and the conditions for peace in Ukraine complete a certain stage in the formation of the Republican administration's foreign policy. Of course, if Trump wins the November 5 election, which is questionable because the outcome of the election remains unknown. Regardless, Joe Biden has withdrawn his candidacy.

The fact that Zelenskyy-Trump spoke positively is a positive sign that the American politician is increasingly aware that the Russian-Ukrainian war is a very complex matter. One may want to "end the war in one day" on Putin's terms, but this approach is more than risky, because instead of being a "strong man," Trump may become known as an extreme loser. And this is at the start of his second presidential term, which is a completely unacceptable prospect for him.

Some points in the former British prime minister's article are disturbing (the reference to the "denazification" of Ukraine as a concession to Putin), but a careful reading of it convinces us that Johnson remains a friend of Ukraine. He wants the best for our people, and for this purpose he works hard, intelligently, and with those who need it most.

Moreover, it can be assumed that it was Boris (as everyone calls him) who facilitated the communication between Zelenskyy and Trump, as he met with the Republican presidential candidate on July 16. The main subject of their conversation was the war in Ukraine, which is natural, since Viktor Orban had met with Trump five days earlier. He presented his "peace plan," which is actually a plan to surrender and dismember Ukraine in the interests of Russia and China.

Johnson set himself the task of convincing his "American friend" that there is an alternative and that it is better for Trump personally and for the United States as a whole.

What’s on Trump’s Mind?

Analyzing the content of Zelenskyy's conversation with Trump alongside the theses in Johnson's article will offer a "snapshot" of the discussions around Trump's foreign policy strategy and his entourage during its formulation. This will also provide insights into the backstage of world politics at a critical moment for the future of Ukraine and the global community.

The conversation with Trump was initiated by the president of Ukraine, who, according to his spokesman, "urged Trump not to believe representatives of those countries who try to explain or justify Putin's actions. Of course, there are no excuses. He is an ordinary murderer." He added that Trump called for "not believing in fake news that his victory could be beneficial to Russia. He called this thesis fake news and urged us not to believe it.”

Zelenskyy himself said that he "agreed with President Trump to discuss in person what steps can make peace just and truly lasting." The American emphasized a different message: "I am grateful to President Zelenskyy for his appeal because I, as the next president of the United States, will bring peace to the world and end the war that has taken so many lives and destroyed countless innocent families.”

At first glance, both politicians seem to be talking about the same thing: ending the Russian-Ukrainian war and peace for Ukrainians. In fact, there are big differences between Zelenskyy's and Trump's positions, which Johnson directly and indirectly described.

When considering Johnson's article in the context of the Zelenskyy-Trump conversation, three things should be kept in mind. First, the Briton knows the former American president very well and knows how to talk to him, pressing on sensitive points in his self-esteem. Secondly, Boris's article should be read in the context of Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) ideology and the content of his campaign slogans. Third, Trump has an "overwhelming weakness" for Putin personally and other dictators.

The question "How to appease Putin?" is present in Trump's thinking and can be seen through his actions. It is hardly possible to change this situation. Perhaps, instead, it can be shown that for Trump himself, this model is not working, and even threatening.

What Johnson wrote about...

Here is a brief summary of Johnson's main points. He is convinced that the way Trump reacted to the terrorist attack against him - by calling on his supporters to fight - demonstrated the qualities necessary for the next owner of the White House: courage, invincibility, and leadership. And that is why only Trump can cope with the three main challenges of our time: the threat of Israel's war with Iran's "proxies," the situation around Taiwan, and the Russian-Ukrainian war.

In his opinion, Trump understands - unlike some Republicans - that Ukraine's defeat will be America's defeat. Putin is not going to be satisfied with the conquest of the country; he wants to conquer Georgia, the Baltic states, and Poland. And as he destroys Reagan's "gains" in Eastern Europe, his allies in China will want to take over Taiwan, while Hezbollah will attack Israel. In such a situation, America will have two choices: to abandon the illusion of world leadership or to spend trillions of dollars and send thousands of American soldiers to foreign countries to die there.

According to Johnson, the way to avoid this choice is simple: strong support for Ukraine, because "Ukrainians have shown that they can and will win. But the war in Ukraine has been going on for too long, its cost is enormous, and only Trump can end it on terms that are favorable to Ukraine and the West. Two steps are needed to achieve these goals. The first is to increase arms supplies to Ukraine and lift bans on the use of Western weapons to strike deep into Russian territory. This will enable Ukrainians to repel the Russian army.

The second step is to hold negotiations with Moscow, a prerequisite for which should be Russia's withdrawal "at least to the pre-invasion boundaries of 2022." And in order to "avoid future conflict and uncertainty the rest of Ukraine would have to be recognised as a free country" and become a member of the EU and NATO as soon as possible.

To the political arguments, Johnson added business arguments, especially those that Trump understands. Ukraine's Defense Forces number more than a million soldiers and are "the most effective anti-Russian force in the world." That's why, after the war, Ukrainian troops could replace some of the US forces in Europe. "That would enable Trump to save money, and to bring U.S. forces home, and get the Europeans to do more in their own defence: one of his key objectives," Johnson summarized this part of his plan.

He offered Russia a number of "compensators." The first is the possibility of recognizing the "special military operation" as successful due to the "denazification of Ukraine." In his opinion, "there could be special protections for Russian language speakers." In addition, Trump is the only occupant of the White House who is able to offer a new rapprochement between Russia and the United States and a return to the days when Russia was "a respected partner of the G8 and even NATO.”

Boris for the territorial integrity of Ukraine

In conclusion, Johnson emphasized that the only way to achieve the desired result is through force. Thus, Washington under Trump's leadership will have to show that "international borders must be respected" and that "the Soviet empire cannot be rebuilt by force.”

Now my comments. Regarding the first step proposed by Johnson. There is no one among Ukrainians who would deny the need to obtain as many weapons as possible and to lift all restrictions on their use to destroy military targets on enemy territory. We are grateful to those Republican and Democratic politicians (for example, House Speaker Mike Johnson) who are pressing President Joe Biden to lift the ban. We hope for a positive conclusion of the negotiations on this issue, which have been conducted by the Ukrainian and American military for several weeks.

The limited permission to use Western weapons in the Kharkiv sector demonstrated the powerful impact of this decision on the situation in the combat zone and in the Russian rear. And after successful mobilization, training of recruits at home and abroad, supplies of Western weapons and cooperation with our intelligence partners, the Ukrainian Defense Forces are able to seize the strategic initiative and end the war with Ukraine's victory. And that's when Moscow will ask for a truce and peace on Ukraine's terms.

This is a good scenario that we want and that our people are ready to realize any day. Similarly, Ukrainians support Ukraine's membership in the EU and NATO as soon as possible - at least today and within the current borders of a free territory. With the fact that the borders of the Ukrainian state were defined in 1991 with the restoration of our independence and recognized by the international community.

It's time for everyone to realize that there will be no peace in the world when someone tries to end the Russian-Ukrainian war differently and introduce peace "in their own way" on our suffering land. The former British Prime Minister understands this well, which is why he said so many words about the courage and strength of our soldiers.

Johnson has been harshly criticized for two proposals: Russia's withdrawal "at least" on the border from February 24, 2022 (which is allegedly tantamount to giving up part of our territory) and his agreement to "denazify" Ukraine. These proposals should be scrutinized, and there is no reason to look for "betrayal" and denial of the author's pro-Ukrainian position in them. Because Johnson did not write that the "February 23rd line" should be the new state border of Ukraine. Instead, he firmly stated that "international borders must be respected," including those of Russia.

Orban is not a negotiator even with Trump

Participants in the recent Republican Party convention were given two signs, among others: one with the inscription "End the war in Ukraine" and the slogan "Peace through strength." This is a telling illustration of the existence of two factions among Republicans: the Trump faction (which blocked aid to Ukraine for six months) and the Reagan faction, which, together with the Democrats, supported the provision of aid. Johnson's article shows the "golden mean" he offered Trump.

We are not completely satisfied with it, because we would not want to allow any ambiguity about Russia's withdrawal "at least to the February 23 line" as a precondition for the start of ceasefire negotiations and, subsequently, a peace agreement. But we have what we have - Trump has never been a friend of Ukraine and is unlikely to become one. Only the tectonic shifts caused by Ukraine's resistance to Russian aggression and the support provided by our allies and partners made even him adjust his position somewhat.

In April, he supported Speaker Johnson when he decided to bring the Ukraine aid bill to a vote, even though Russia did everything possible and impossible to prevent this from happening. Today, he is forced to take a call from Zelenskyy and listen to Johnson's position, thus undermining Orban's status as a "negotiator" mandated by Putin and Xi Jinping. Thus, Trump has begun to signal that he understands what is self-evident and unanimously accepted by Ukrainians: that peace in Ukraine should be discussed with us first and foremost, not with the aggressor.

Now for the "denazification" of Ukraine. Johnson has previously said that this genocidal ideologeme is an acceptable "compromise" with Putin to end the war as soon as possible. He is not to blame, as even a sophisticated expert on Ukrainian history, Professor Timothy Snyder, has suggested that Russian be made the second official language in Ukraine.

The Ukrainian government is at fault for convincing Western partners behind the scenes that issues of language, faith, and history should be viewed as matters for "compromise" with Russia and "denazification" is inconsequential. And even in the third year of the "great war," the parliament cannot gather enough votes to ban the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Although there is more than enough evidence of its criminal activities and subordination to Russian state structures and its special services.

A nation that does not care about its own dignity, the foundations of national security and the prerequisites for a secure and successful future should not demand such care from others.

Source

About the author. Mykola Kniazhytskyi, journalist, member of the Ukrainian parliament.

The editors don't always share the opinions expressed by the authors of blogs or columns.