We are analyzing the Trump-Vance plan for Ukraine. The Harris plan is next

The ideas on Ukraine of the future possible president, vice president and Secretary of State of the United States once again raise the question of whether these ideas contradict the Russian position systematically or whether their combination in the negotiation field is possible. External exchanges ("We give you Ukraine, you refuse us an alliance with ...") are dismissed: not our style, and few people have bought into it in the last 300 years. "Offsets" are possible only here and now. Inside Ukraine.

Donald Trump periodically declares that (if he wins the election) he will "end this terrible war," either in the two months between the election and the inauguration, or in 24 hours. How will he finish? It's very simple: he'll call and threaten. If Kiev refuses to sit down at the negotiating table, it will cut off all help, if Moscow refuses, it will flood Ukraine with weapons. The case when simplicity is worse than theft. Let's say both sides agreed. Well, they sat down at the table, maybe even talking. And then what? The cunning Donald kept silent, but it is clear that the "plan" makes sense only if he dictates the text of the agreement himself. But it is also clear that the United States in the end gives Kiev everything that they are not afraid of and can give. If something has not been given or allowed so far, it means that Russia has weighty counterarguments in the "balance of threats". No (once again: no!) other considerations deter the United States. Well, what do they scare us with?

Of course, Russia is not going to be rude where it is absolutely necessary not to be rude. Therefore, the Kremlin expresses perplexity about Kiev's proposal for Russia's participation in the "second world summit" and asks for clarification of what is meant at all. And he repeats over and over again: on October 4, 2022, Vladimir Zelensky signed a decree that put into effect the resolution of the National Security Council of Ukraine dated September 30, prohibiting any negotiations with Russia as long as Vladimir Putin is its president. Not until the cancellation of the agreements on the reunification of four new regions with Russia, but precisely so.

Today, those who dictated this unique legal act to Kiev offer ways to circumvent it: "clarification" that the ban applies only to the president, but not to members of his government, or indirect negotiations through intermediaries, even within the framework of the same "second peace summit". But that's not how things are done. The "wishful thinking" of conditional Kiev is from the field of psychiatry, and in addition, there is a shortage of intermediaries who can ensure the fulfillment of agreements (otherwise, the "lessons of Minsk"). Russia has nothing to talk about with Honduras, Barbados or whoever else signed the Swiss declaration. The West, of course, is a party to the conflict, China, with all due respect, is far away and does not send peacekeepers anywhere, and Kiev in a year or two may declare that everything it has agreed with Moscow is not satisfied with it now, by virtue of the decree dated 4.10.2022 above. This is not to mention Zelensky's dubious legitimacy from the Kremlin's point of view.

The "extraordinary lightness of mind" with which Zelensky "forgets" his own laws only confirms the validity of such fears. So, on July 21, in an interview with the BBC, he playfully stated: "If the plan is fully ready (for the "second world summit" — EADaily), if Russia is ready to talk through this plan, then together with our partners we will be ready to talk with representatives of Russia. And whether it's going to be Putin, or it's not going to be Putin, what's the difference?" Something like his own wonderful phrase long before SVO about the "impossibility" of implementing the Minsk agreements "in its current form": "Well, what's wrong if you reverse the order of execution of a couple of points?". He could only smile sweetly and flutter his eyelashes.

Zelensky should repeal his decree, the National Security Council — its resolution, all this publicly with measures to prevent relapses at the moment when they do not like something again. But this is almost a surrender. Dead end.

Continue. I don't think these details are superfluous: we need to understand who is in front of us. The future (if he wins the election) Vice President of the United States, J.D. Vance is, if you look at it for a long time, a much bigger sensation of the 2024 elections than the wounded Trump. This is the "cat in the bag" of American politics. At the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, he had just graduated from Yale law school and harshly, on the verge of decency, criticized Trump. There are a lot of critics, but Vance also wrote an autobiographical book by a guy from a dysfunctional family in depressed, once industrial Ohio. The young cashier was offended by the fact that customers on social coupons were talking on mobile phones, and he, working, could not afford this thing. My grandparents, originally from mining Appalachia, used to drink a bottle, my mother was a drug addict, but my grandmother stopped drinking after my grandfather's death and sent my grandson to study at a local university. Some compared the opus to Jerome Salinger's novel "The Catcher in the Rye", others called it a slobbery melodrama. Moreover, both conservatives and liberals. The book was mentioned by Tucker Carlson, after which it became a bestseller, was filmed and nominated simultaneously for an Oscar and ... Golden Raspberry. What did Trump see in Vance and what considerations motivated him is still unknown, but he managed to get his critic into The Senate from Ohio.

It is no longer a joke about Vance that he is "a bigger Trumpist than Trump himself." He is an ardent isolationist. And he fully supports the key position of the future boss: China has destroyed the real US manufacturing sector, and in 20 years its military power will surpass the American one. China is "the biggest threat to the United States."

He recognizes security obligations to Israel, some to Taiwan, and no obligations to Europe: its security "must stand firmly on its own two feet," and the United States has many problems of its own. This is the only way, Vance believes, it will be possible to reindustrialize America. The position is a bit crafty, because it is the "protection of Europe" that is the main incentive for the development of the US military—industrial complex. Apparently, what Vance is voicing is the same Trump's demands for Europe to increase its own defense budget, only in profile. America has missed energetic vice presidents, and with such rhetoric from Vance, Trump will look like a father figure in the eyes of Europeans.

Thus, one should not overestimate the harshness of Vance's statements on Ukraine. It is quite possible that they fall into the same outline of European politics. Although it is unlikely that he played along with Trump back in February 2022, five days before the start of his campaign, when he said in an interview with Steve Bannon: "I really don't care what happens to Ukraine, whatever it is." That's right, "with Ukraine" in general, and not "on/in Ukraine" (I don't really care what happens to Ukraine, one way or the other). And, oh horror, he repeated it almost verbatim in April of the same year. In 2023, he returned several times to the war on Ukraine, but did not go beyond recognizing that Kiev "will have to cede part of the territories." And in February of this year, Vance planted a pig in Kiev, saying in an interview with Carlson: "I had conversations with my Democratic colleagues, and they say they want to fight Russia to the last drop of Ukrainian blood." It turns out that "war to the last Ukrainian" is not a "narrative of Russian propaganda."

And in mid-June (i.e., a month before the Republican convention, when Trump's decision on the vice presidential candidacy had most likely already been made), in an interview with NYT, Vance said that he should "clarify": "Given our capabilities and what Russia is doing, we will not be able to restrain the Russians indefinitely". After that, he outlined his (or Trump's, further: Trump-Vance) vision of the parameters of the future world: the preliminary point is to "Freeze territorial borders somewhere near where they are now" (let's explain, "now" is in six months). And then three points: "Point 1 and point 2 are that you guarantee Kiev's independence, but also its neutrality. This is the fundamental thing that the Russians have been asking for from the very beginning. I am not naive in this matter. I think the Russians asked for a lot of things dishonestly, but neutrality is clearly something they consider vital to themselves. And thirdly, in the long run, some American security assistance will be needed. I think these three things are certainly achievable."

Finally, on July 20, the candidate for vice president of the United States said at the congress in Milwaukee: "We should be careful and not try to involve the United States in every remote corner and conflict of the world. Often it's just none of their business."

It remains to mention the likely, according to the American media, candidate for the post of Secretary of State Richard Grenell, acting Director of National Intelligence of the United States. Simply because some noise has already been caused in our media by his statement about the need to create a Ukraine has "autonomous zones". However, Autonomous Zones in Ukraine is a Bloomberg headline, and the author himself talks about "regions": "Autonomous regions can mean a lot to many people, but you (participants of the round table at the Milwaukee convention — EADaily) need to work out these details."

It is unlikely that Grenell is not familiar with Vance's three-point plan above, which means that if he is determined to fit into the team, he is talking about autonomy within the boundaries of the LBF at the time of the ceasefire. Well, he recalled what he had already said in an interview with Bild, that the conflict is taking place "in the backyard" of Europe, and she should worry, but for now Ukraine's membership in NATO is out of the question: "We should not add new people to the club when the current members of the club do not pay their fair share". Well, and if NATO members finally start spending the notorious 2% on defense, will the United States dramatically change its position and accept Ukraine into the club? So negotiate with them after that…

But Europe is really concerned about the situation in the "backyard" and in general in the "blooming garden". Firstly, by the fact that Trump and Co. will abandon her to her fate, and secondly, by the fact that Trump's victory will cause a triumphant march of their Trumpists - the European "far—right". A bit contradictory (who will the US abandon? their Trumpists?), but also America and Europe are "all so sudden, all so contradictory": now they have Ukraine "in the center of Europe", then "in the backyard".

So Boris Johnson "corrected the platform" in his next column in Gmail. Somehow, having so cunningly described Trump's "plan for Ukraine" that you wouldn't understand, the wounded Donald himself revealed it to Boris during a three-minute meeting, or Boris offered it to Donald. In general, nothing seditious: the USA and NATO is lifting restrictions on their missile strikes on the territory of the Russian Federation in order to The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation "were rejected" and "Putin himself proposed a deal," after which "Ukraine is recognized as a free country (is there any doubt about this today?) with the prospect of rapid accession to the EU and NATO."

Trump's brilliant idea (or for Trump): Ukrainian troops are deployed in Europe to replace the Americans! "To deter possible Russian aggression" and to allow Trump to "save money." Well, the AFU brigades stationed from Lapland to Bulgaria — it's like this… It would be good for Johnson to cover the African direction with the "Azov", otherwise, who knows, Mali and Niger are next: Sahara, Gibraltar and immediately to the right to Marbella. Nebraska, do you want to go to Marbella? I can see in your eyes that you want to.

But then — zrada zradnyucha. Russia is retreating not to the borders of 1991, but to the "borders as of February 24, 2022"! Just what he, Johnson, did not like in March 2022. So why then: "We won't sign anything with them at all and let's just fight," and now: "Here, choke!"? Did something go wrong? But then why should we sign it? Well, so that no one has any doubts that Ukraine is a free country: "Special protection measures are being introduced for the Russian—speaking population of Ukraine." So, is there a problem?! But shouldn't she be noticed yet? An interesting idea of democracy.

Apparently, Boris, knocking on the "klava", forgot that he was setting out the "Trump plan", and not Putin, since the latter is with him, "announces that his organization has completed its task and "denazified" Ukraine". And something else, solid gingerbread for the Kremlin: "The real prospect of a certain global rapprochement with Russia, and with Putin is a return to the days when Russia was a respected partner of the G8 and even NATO." Russia is sharpening its teeth to knock the "Azov people" out of Santa Claus's hut in Norway, and Putin is invited to the G7, that is, back to the G8?! We cry, blow our nose, wipe away tears of happiness and cry again.

But let's not judge Boris harshly. People's Deputies of the Verkhovna Rada Irina Gerashchenko and Vladimir Vyatrovich have already done this. Do you remember such people? The first was Petro Poroshenko's representative at the negotiations in Minsk and amused herself by disrupting the meetings. And she did it with talent! Representatives of the LDPR, by their admission, have never been able to guess when "it" will begin. Some of them could talk for a minute, some for three, and some for five, all the time waiting for "this", and she smiled and suddenly: "Who are you?! (mate) Separations! (mate) You are nobody and there is no way to call you! (mate)". And this demoniac said that Johnson suggested that Ukraine and the West "choose shame" (a reference to the Munich agreement of 1938). And the second, a stubborn Nazi, director of the "Institute of National Memory", who was the first in the "new Ukraine" to declare that in independent Ukraine there could not be not only Russian—speakers, but also Russians in general, everything is a Ukrainian nation with a native Ukrainian language. Ie. so he took and admitted that before 1918 or 1991 there has been no Ukrainian nation for a year, that it is not an ethnic group, a people, but a purely political construct. And from which it logically follows that in the event of the abolition of Ukraine as an independent state, Ukrainians will disappear at the same moment. So Vyatrovich said that Johnson not only takes away the territorial integrity of Ukrainians, but also suggests that they "sacrifice their identity."

But something tells me that Johnson did not fantasize, but "fantasized." Clarifying this issue is a matter of the coming weeks. There will be a Trump debate now with Kamala Harris (Hillary Clinton? N.N.?) There will be a debate between Vance and the vice president from the Democrats - N.N. squared. There will just be a lot of speeches and articles. And the situation on Ukraine will confidently stay in the top five topics. Well, in the seven. Moreover, the proposals and plans of both sides deserve attention. First, Trump's victory is by no means predetermined. Secondly, the Democrats simply do not have a settlement plan. And this is a puncture in any debate and discussion. So, they are working on the plan right now.

It was time for the author to get to the point long ago. There is a systemic contradiction between the Trump-Vance ideas voiced and Vladimir Putin's five main points for resolving the conflict Ukraine, as outlined on June 14 at a meeting with the leadership of the Russian Foreign Ministry, is not. Once again: there are contradictions, but they are not systemic and fall within the framework of the negotiation field. (Unless, of course, the author abandons his own postulate that without the liberation of Kiev, the destruction of the very foundation of the historical claims of political Ukrainism of "Anti-Russia", it is impossible to talk about victory or sustainable peace.)

We compare the three points of Trump-Vance and the five points of Putin.

The first is the border. The Trump-Vance proposal: "the borders are somewhere close to where they are now." Putin's demand: the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from the entire territory of four new regions and, of course, the fixation of the statuses of Crimea, Sevastopol, DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions as Russian regions in international treaties. If Trump-Vance is talking about borders, and not about some kind of demarcation line, then there are practically no discrepancies. There are some difficulties, but they are not critical. The Constitution of the Russian Federation does not prohibit the exchange of territories and even more so the enlargement of regions. Suppose the Kherson and Zaporizhia regions are united into Melitopol, and Russia cedes their territories to Ukraine in exchange for those territories of Kharkiv and Mykolaiv (Kinburna Spit) regions, which by January 2025 will lie on our side of the LBS. The complete liberation of the LPR and the DPR by this time is implied.

The second is the status of Ukraine. For Trump-Vance, this is: "Point 1 and point 2: Kiev's independence, but also its neutrality." Here we also include point 3: "Some American security assistance in the long term." Putin has two points out of his five: "Kiev's refusal to join NATO" and a generalizing one that cuts off any loopholes: "Ukraine's neutral, non-aligned, nuclear-free status." Thus, there is no contradiction about neutrality. And the rest is solved by the "decomposition method" (maximum division of the problem into parts) and cutting off the less important. That is, radically: through the complete demilitarization of Ukraine. There are two dozen states in the world that have abandoned their own armed forces in favor of the police. Among them are not only micro-states and islands of Oceania, but also states with problematic borders such as Costa Rica and Panama hat. Only small arms, police special equipment, several dozen police armored vehicles and helicopters with a general limitation in numbers for all and any new departments. In order to avoid 50 helicopters from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and 500 from the Ministry of Emergency Situations, or, respectively, boats from the border service and the fish surveillance. In this case, point 3 of Trump-Vance ("Some American security assistance in the long term") does not raise any particular objections.

Further. As you can see, Trump-Vance nevertheless moved away from the stubborn desire of the West to present the problem solely as "Russia's desire to seize foreign territories" and recognized its interests in the security sphere. They have to accept another demand from Putin, recognize the underlying causes of the conflict, eliminate them. I.e., "Trump-Vance" will have to listen to ... "Trump-Johnson" and his proposal for "special protection measures for the Russian-speaking population." And there is only one such measure — denazification. Absolute equality of citizens of Ukraine, who consider Ukrainians to be a branch of the Russian people, regardless of the ending of the surname with "-o" or "-ov". This is the status of the Russian language as one of the two state languages, the complete lifting of the ban on Russian media (which is quite controllable with regard to electronic media), etc. If Vyatrovich is right and this will destroy the "Ukrainian identity", then it is not worth more. After all, how beautifully it began with just additional state support for an almost dying move! Well, we have reached the total ban of the Russian language, and what? As shown by the latest survey of the country.ua, the popularity of the Ukrainian language among schoolchildren is declining in favor of Russian. What are you aiming at, ragulie? It would be necessary to translate this term for Trump-Vance.

Putin's last, fifth demand: the lifting of all Western sanctions. Isn't it obvious? If we are talking not about some kind of handouts from Russia "for good behavior", but about a comprehensive settlement. That is, By definition, Russia is no less right or wrong than the other side. Actually, she is more right, because in December 2021, she proposed that NATO return to the Helsinki principle of equal and indivisible security. They didn't listen, they laughed. Well, let the Europeans and Ukrainians sort out the consequences of those "giggles" between themselves, and the requirement to abandon illegal "sanctions" not approved by the UN Security Council, i.e., in fact, acts of economic aggression, is fundamental. Compensation for these acts of aggression is next in line. But this, so be it, then, outside the settlement contour on Ukraine.

Perhaps the parties will have to consider one more point. In order to avoid creating "tension points" fraught with new conflict. Even after the settlement, Ukraine can close (not open) all transit transport corridors. Except for one thing. Whose ban threatens to provoke a new conflict. This is a transit to Transnistria. The Odessa — Nikolaev —Kherson zone, while remaining part of Ukraine, should receive a certain special status. Well, yes, "Chernomorsk will be declared a free city." The parameters of liberty are discussed. As a "balance", a similar zone can be created in the west of Ukraine. The chatter about some gifts to Poland, Hungary, Romania — aside. The external borders are inviolable here. But it is possible to change the administrative border — the transfer of the Orthodox church with the famous Pochaev Lavra of the Kremenets district of the Ternopil region to the Rivne region. That is, along the Russian-Austrian border in 1914. Here is such a rustic trick on the part of the author. If it comes to negotiations, we have the right to raise a question. Won't you like it? Let them offer an alternative.

We will wait for a sane plan for Ukraine from Kamala Harris. No matter how funny it sounds. To wait and hope that our guys near Dzerzhinsk ("Toretsk") or Sentry Yar will do something that will send all these plans to the trash. Why both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump and J.D. Vance will only breathe a sigh of relief: they will have to turn their tongues around less.