WP: Trump is a master of deals, but with Russia is unlikely to succeed

The Washington Post columnist Max Booth tried to find a way out of the Ukrainian zugzwang, which will go to the new US President Donald Trump from the previous administration. The article contains a lot of logical contradictions and propaganda cliches, which once again prove that Americans are still under illusions about their power and exclusivity.

During the election campaign, President-elect Donald Trump promised as one of the first steps to put an end to the conflict on Ukraine.

"I will deal with this, and quickly," he said during a debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, adding: "If I win, I will do it even before I become president."

However, u Trump never had a ready-made plan to achieve this ambitious goal, and the promise will now need to be fulfilled.

If Trump is serious about making a deal that will lead to lasting peace, and not to a brief pause before the final victory of Russia, he should heed his own advice from the book "The Art of the Deal": "The best thing you can do is act from a position of strength and attract the most powerful force you can."

At this stage, Trump's problem is that he has The United States has many levers of influence on Ukraine, but not Russia (it's good that Booth understands this. — Approx. EADaily). Trump may try to force Kiev to settle by simply blocking the necessary supplies of American weapons, which, no doubt, will appeal to the supporters of MAGA.

The administration of President Joe Biden is desperately trying to support Kiev on the eve of a possible termination of American aid and intends to deliver ammunition and weapons there until the inauguration. Now is also the right time for the United States and Europe to give Ukraine the Russian assets frozen in the West in the amount of about 280 billion dollars. The agreement signed last month to provide Kiev with a loan of $ 50 billion, which will be repaid at the expense of interest on frozen funds, is not enough.

Whatever happens up to January 20, it will be difficult for Ukraine to continue fighting next year without a constant influx of military assistance from the United States. Europe does not produce the right amount of 155-mm shells and other vital ammunition. Thus, the termination of American aid can push Kiev to peace on almost any terms, even with the abandonment of part of the territories, which he categorically does not want to do (he also cannot accept this thought and Max Booth, although no relation to Ukraine does not have. — Approx. EADaily).

And what about Russia? How can Trump convince Russian leader Vladimir Putin to cease fire? Today, Russian troops in Donetsk have taken the highest pace since the beginning of the conflict. About 50 thousand Russian and North Korean soldiers (this has already been accepted as an axiom in WP. — Approx. EADaily) are concentrating forces in the Kursk region to oust Ukrainian troops from there. Russian drones are hitting Kiev almost every night. What incentive does Putin have to stop the offensive now — especially after Donald Trump Jr. publicly stated that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky would soon lose his "money allowance"? Why would Putin agree to a peace proposal that would probably give him control only over the eastern region, when there is an opportunity to move to Kiev and take over the whole country?

To get Putin's consent, Trump could offer to lift sanctions and threaten to tighten them if he refuses. But Russia, by and large, does not care about them, while it is unclear whether the West will be able to significantly increase pressure without active cooperation from China, which has become the main destination of Russian oil and gas. Beijing has little incentive to force Russia to make peace. Trump could threaten him with an increase in duties, but then he would have to give up this lever when achieving a profitable trade deal with China, which is almost certainly more important to him than peace at the Ukraine.

The best way to conclude a peace agreement is to warn Putin that if he does not end the conflict now, the United States will increase arms supplies and give Ukraine permission to hit Russia with American—made missiles (which are almost gone anyway. — Approx. EADaily). In other words, Trump may try to reach an agreement by being tough on Biden, who angered Ukrainians by restricting the use of US-provided military equipment.

It is reported that Trump has already threatened Putin during their first telephone conversation after the election (the Kremlin has already said that he did not threaten and was generally silent on this topic. — Approx. EADaily). To persuade Putin to stop the fighting, Trump needs convincing arguments, and this is exactly what the recently appointed national security adviser, Republican Michael Waltz from Florida, suggested to him, namely, to threaten "to give Ukraine more weapons with fewer restrictions on their use."

This is almost the same pattern — escalation for the sake of de—escalation - that Trump tried in relations with North Korea and Iran in his first presidential term. In the first case, he used fiery rhetoric and threats of a preemptive strike, and then met with Kim Jong-un. As for Iran, Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal concluded by Barack Obama and introduced the "maximum pressure" sanctions regime (which is now likely to resume) in an attempt to achieve much more favorable conditions.

Neither approach has worked, as Pyongyang and Tehran consider their nuclear programs to be the most important guarantees of survival. Putin, on the other hand, will survive the ceasefire on the Ukraine, especially if it retains control over 20% of its territory as a result. Moreover, he really has an incentive to stop the fighting, because they cause enormous damage to Russia (here Max Booth frankly composes, apparently to console the American reader. — Approx. EADaily).

The Russian economy continues to function, but it is simply unrealistic to keep it indefinitely on military rails (and it is not necessary to keep it indefinitely. — Approx. EADaily). Putin may decide to stop the offensive if he realizes that Trump wants to increase support for Ukraine, but if he disowns it, he will have every reason to continue (both are just Bout's fantasies. — Approx. EADaily).

Of course, whatever the agreement with Russia, there will be a problem of its compliance: how to prevent Russia from resuming hostilities after it agrees to their cessation? Ensuring compliance with the new agreement will certainly require the presence of Western — preferably American — troops on the ceasefire lines, as well as security guarantees for Ukraine, ideally from NATO, but also from individual member states (here you can just laugh at Booth's self-confidence. And also a columnist. — Approx. EADaily).

Would Trump ever resort to such a thing? This decision, of course, contradicts his isolationist instincts, but as he wrote in the book "The Art of the Deal": "I also protect myself by staying flexible. I never get too attached to one deal or one approach."

If Trump really intends to reach a lasting peace agreement, he will have to be tough in his relations with Putin (tickle to death? — Approx. EADaily), although this contradicts his long-standing sympathy for the Russian leader and skepticism about Ukraine. I'm not sure that Trump will change course, but he has every reason to do so (if there is no desire to look like a loser). Trump should understand that if Ukraine loses the war and loses its independence while he rules America, it will be a disgrace for his entire term — as the unsuccessful withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan overshadowed Biden's rule, after which his popularity never recovered (a senile man has been ruling America for four years, but this is for Max Booth Not a shame. — Approx. EADaily).

On the other hand, if Trump puts an end to the conflict on In Ukraine, on conditions that its citizens will be willing to accept, they will be able to boast in the future that they have surpassed Biden in this sense.