Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Donald Trump’s triumph as president has created the expectation of a truce or peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Trump promised to agree to peace immediately upon assuming his country’s presidency. How he will achieve this is another matter. He has not said, but rumors suggest that he will stop arming Ukraine, which would force that country to seek an (unfavorable) agreement with Russia.
Elon Musk and Donald Trump Jr. publicly mock Zelensky. JD Vance, the Vice President-elect, has advocated the U.S. withdrawal from the zone. Recently, Trump himself was outraged by Ukraine’s use of U.S. long-range missiles against Russia. Everything indicates a Trump preference for a deal favorable to Russia and unfavorable to Ukraine.
For now, Ukraine and Russia seek to strengthen their respective positions militarily and territorially before January 20, when Trump assumes his country’s presidency. Retired General Keith Kellogg was appointed to lead the negotiation between the conflicting countries and has been a proponent of continued support for Ukraine, as is Marco Rubio, Trump’s Secretary of State nominee.
Many wonder what Putin has to gain from a negotiation when his army is on the offensive. And what sense does it make for Zelensky to negotiate the defeat of Ukrainian aspirations for sovereignty and freedom?
The possible scenarios are as follows.
Scenario 1. The best thing for Ukraine would be a cease-fire with solid agreements that ensure that Russia will desist from any future intention to seize more Ukrainian territories, even if it means that Ukraine would have to give up some of its territories currently in Russian hands. Also, Ukraine will apply for NATO membership as a guarantee against future Russian aggression or invasion. Many question this scenario, asking why Russia would accept this agreement if it is on the offensive in Ukraine.
Scenario 2. A ceasefire without guarantees would give the armies a breathing space to rearm their troops with equipment and new soldiers. With this agreement, a resumption of hostilities would be expected in a few months, if not weeks.
Scenario 3. Ukraine, desperate and without U.S. military support, asks for peace. Under these conditions, Russia will ask for changes in the Ukrainian Constitution to, for example, make the country bilingual with Russian and Ukrainian. Russia will also annex the territories that it declared to be Russian territory more than a year and a half ago. Ukraine commits itself not to join NATO.
Scenario 4. When asked why Russia will stop its territorial aspirations, the answer is that it may simply take over the country as a whole as a new entity within the new Russian empire. This scenario will involve a migration phenomenon of millions of Ukrainians fleeing to Europe in the face of the imposition of an undemocratic and authoritarian regime in their country.
As is evident, no scenario currently exists in which Ukraine will succeed in expelling the Russian aggressor from its territory, including Crimea. On the contrary, apart from scenario one, the other scenarios involve partial to total defeat for Ukraine. Scenarios 2 to 4 imply, to a greater or lesser degree, continued conflict for Ukraine now and into future Ukrainian generations.
Two essential questions remain to be answered: Why will Russia agree to a ceasefire when it perceives that the United States and Europe have had enough and will no longer support Ukraine? And why will Ukraine agree to surrender when its history of defending its sovereignty goes back centuries?
The biggest misfortune, no doubt, is that it will be Trump who will play the defining card in the drama on the Eurasian plain. A defining card that, in any case, may not solve anything in the region.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: