No matter what one may think about President Donald Trump, he certainly has moved to end the war in Ukraine in ways many thought would not succeed. And it may not work. But yesterday’s phone call with President Vladimir Putin seemed to start in motion a possible ceasefire or truce.
Caution is needed. As in Trump’s first term, the effort to charm North Korea’s boss Kim Jung Un failed, dealing with Putin is not without risk. In fairness, as Trump’s initiative with Russia is urgently needed, US and Western treatment towards Putin has produced great cynicism and resentment on his part.
In 1994, with the removal of Soviet nuclear weapons from Ukraine-and these were not Ukrainian but Soviet and controlled by the Strategic Rocket Force, the Budapest Memorandum was signed to assure Ukrainian sovereignty with signatures from the nuclear powers US, UK, Russia and Ukraine. Twenty years later, Putin would violate that pact.
George W. Bush may have looked into Putin’s eyes and seen his soul, that made little difference. Putin became acting president on New Years 2000. In 2001, Bush unilaterally abrogated the centerpiece of US-Soviet-Russian relations, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) that came as a great surprise to Moscow. The reason was to develop a system stationed in Europe designed to shoot down Iranian ballistic missiles aimed at the US.
To Putin’s view, this was absurd. Iran did not have nuclear weapons nor the means to strike the US. Worse, the ABM system had a capability against Russian missile systems that would give the West a strategic advantage given Moscow’s paranoia over nuclear systems. Then Bush rejected Putin’s assistance and advice in the Afghan invasion after September 11th and despite the failure of the USSR to pacify that country. Putin implored Bush not to attack Iran arguing that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and then an invasion would send the region into chaos. Putin was correct and Bush was wrong. That made no difference. And worse, NATO continued its expansion east.
As in Trump’s first term, the effort to charm North Korea’s boss Kim Jung Un failed, dealing with Putin is not without risk.
At the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Putin unleashed a broadside against NATO explaining his grievances. It was largely ignored. Then at the NATO heads of government and state conference in Bucharest in 2008, Bush made a spectacular error.
Georgia and Ukraine had applied for the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program and were turned down. In his final speech, Bush tried to amend the PfP issue stating that Georgia and Ukraine could join NATO at some future date. Putin was furious.
I was there. Putin angrily approached Bush repeating Bush’s father’s statement after Hussein invaded Kuwait-“George that will not stand.” Bush tried to downplay his statement to no avail.
In 2014, the Maidan Revolution occurred over Ukrainian decisions to move closer to the West and took place in February 2014. Deadly clashes broke out between protesters and state forces in Kyiv. President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted. Putin saw the opportunity to seize Crimea which he did. The US took no serious action. Meanwhile conflict broke out between Ukrainian forces in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Three years ago, Russia invaded Ukraine. The war has persisted. Russian casualties mounted and may have reached over 800,000 dead. And Ukraine has obviously suffered.
That Trump has succeeded in at least getting partial agreement with Putin was a promising first step. Ukraine must agree too. But here the issues just start. Putin will not accept Ukrainian membership in NATO or the EU, made moot as several alliance states will not agree. Who then provides the security and sovereignty assurances for Ukraine?
Trump may think US investment in developing Ukrainian rare earth and other minerals will suffice to deter further Russian aggression. Perhaps. Control of occupied territory must be resolved as Russia controls about 1/5 of the land mass. And reconstruction and return of kidnapped Ukrainian children remain open.
Can Putin be trusted? Would he not take a partial agreement and at some date intervene again? And would Ukraine have sufficient support to resist? Finally, what incentives do both sides have to stop the fighting as neither is likely to be satisfied with the status quo?
Trump may prove to be a magician. At this point and given the history, this appears an exceedingly long shot. As the Gaza truce failed, so too could Ukraine succumb. There is always some hope. And there is reality
The writer is a senior advisor at Washington, DC’s Atlantic Council and a published author. He can be reached on Twitter @harlankullman.