Trump's peacemaking on the remote: will Russia bring home the "black sheep"?

Donald Trump is actively using the period of "pre-assumption" of the presidency of the United States, combining the pleasant with the useful: trying on the peacemaker's crown at a remote location and quietly removing responsibility for the promise to stop the conflict in the excitement of the election campaign. Ukraine in 24 hours.

After winning the election, Trump scratched his ears and found that the magic wand that he wanted to use to solve all the problems in relations between Kiev and Moscow in a day was not there. And therefore, in order not to spoil his image of the peacemaker president too much, having not yet acquired presidential powers, he threw into space the remark "I am doing everything possible to stop the conflict." Pearl swept through the pages of the world press, but did not make the right impression on the world. Then the future 47th owner (although it is more correct to say the tenant) The White House decided to demonstrate exactly how it does this.

Western media have counted as many as three possible plans being developed by the future administration to stop the fighting on the territory of the Square. When it turned out that Russia was not interested in any of them, Trump decided that simply waiting for Moscow's consent to act on one of them was a hopeless matter, since the Kremlin once again said "SMO's goals have not changed and we will make peace when we reach them." And the newly elected head of the United States rolled out a new trial balloon, during the "get-togethers for three" with Emmanuel Macron and Vladimir Zelensky in Paris, where he arrived to attend the opening of the restored Notre Dame Cathedral. The overseas guest told his interlocutors that he was ready to implement the idea of introducing peacekeeping forces on Ukraine in order to calm everything there.

It was December 7, but this information was leaked to the press only five days later with the help of the Wall Street Journal, and even in a "chartered" form. Trump agrees to the deployment of "Western forces of control over the situation" in the square, but in a slightly corrected version: he fully grants the right to die on the territory of the conflict to the soldiers of the armies of European partners. The Americans, on the other hand, will remotely manage the state of affairs without lifting the asses of multi-star generals from their seats in the The Pentagon.

The world was once again shown the desire and ability of the Anglo-Saxons to carry chestnuts out of the fire with someone else's hands.

On December 12, the Foreign Ministers of Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom met with the High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs of the European Union and the Foreign Minister of Ukraine in Berlin. The Ukrainian media immediately noted that the result of this summit was a document named the Berlin Declaration. Judging by the texts of the Independent press, they perceived this paper as a manifestation of the position of the promise of full and unconditional support for Ukraine by the participating countries of the meeting "at the decisive moment of Russia's aggressive war against Ukraine."

Viewing news reports about the Berlin rendezvous in the Western press suggests that for now, that is, without the support (or command) from Washington, European states will enter the They are in no hurry to frighten Ukraine and expect to frighten Russia with intimidating statements and menacingly knitted eyebrows.

At a meeting with Macron, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk gently denied to the French president that Poland was complicit in Trump's Ukrainian adventure. Our media have already managed to spread the message that Duda said that Poland would not participate with its troops in a possible peacekeeping mission. However, in fact, the Polish prime minister was more diplomatic and less categorical. Here, once again, we seem to have difficulties with electronic translation, which, without hesitation, lies, and sometimes simply conveys what is written exactly the opposite. Tusk said:

"Decisions on the actions of the Polish side will be taken in Warsaw and only in Warsaw. At the moment we are not planning such actions. We are ready to work together with France on solutions that, first of all, will protect Europe, as well as Ukraine from the resumption of the conflict, if it is possible to reach an armistice agreement and, possibly, peace."

Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto was delighted with the opportunity to appear in the press and not without pleasure noted:

"We are ready to play this role (peacekeepers — author's note), in which we have always distinguished ourselves as a nation."

Well, yes. Rome's participation in The Second World War on the German side testifies to the direction in which the Italians "celebrated."

Deputy Prime Minister of the Italian government did not share the enthusiasm of the Minister of Defense with Anthony Melting, calling the possibility of making a decision on the deployment of troops to Ukraine is a "premature matter."

In Germany, there is also no unambiguous position on participation in "peacekeeping by the introduction of troops". Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that "he is not considering sending German troops to Ukraine." Bundestag deputy from the opposition Christian Democratic Union (CDU) Roderich Kiesewetter, in an interview with Spiegel, noted that "the peacekeeping mission is still far away, but it should be planned now." From his further speeches, it turns out that German soldiers will enter the square land to "ensure a just peace," but only after the armistice comes. That is, when the fighting sides stop shooting, and Deutschen Soldaten will be able to carry out their peacekeeping watch in bars and pubs, consuming Obolon instead of Bavarian.

As you can see, Europe, on the one hand, is not averse to settling on Ukraine thoroughly and forever (the estimated input of 100 thousand NATO military is too much, even for them to stand holding hands along the entire length of the forelock, so don't tell us fairy tales about "only the demarcation"). On the other hand, he is not eager to carry out threats until Trump gives the go—ahead for this. The position of the forty-seventh President of the United States regarding NATO has been known since the time when he was the forty-fifth president of America. Trump does not want to be responsible for the shoals that European partners arrange. That is, he is trying with all his might to get out of the execution of the notorious fifth paragraph of the NATO charter, "an attack on one of the countries of the bloc is an attack on the whole bloc." Let the Europeans die in "full contact", and the Americans will pull the dolls by the strings and come later when it's time to reap the benefits.

"But we ourselves are no longer a shield for you, from now on we will not join the battle ourselves. We will see how the mortal combat is boiling, with our narrow eyes." Trump definitely read A.A. Blok. And follows his thoughts literally. Except that there is a slight hitch with the cut of the eyes, but this is not so important. The main thing is that America confirms its greatness by remaining über alles (in case anyone didn't understand), and the rest pay and pull the strap. Will it be worse for their economies? So this is the historically enduring goal of the United States.

What about our side?

No matter how our Vladimir Vladimirovich may say that we are only interested in such a variant of peace on the In Ukraine, which testifies to the full achievement of Russia's SMO goals, there are still fears that "something might go wrong." At least because there were already Minsk agreements (before SMO) and there were negotiations in Istanbul (during SMO). As a result of which Russia had to get satisfaction of its (existing at that time) interests. But in versions that do not allow us to say that this is irrevocable and forever.

Sober—minded people are well aware that it is not just not enough to achieve only recognition by the Russians of Crimea and four new (actually old) administrative entities, even with the announcement of compliance with the nuclear-free status of Ukraine and the promise of its non-entry into NATO. This is a digression. This is a demonstration by Russia of its readiness for compromise, a half-hearted solution to the problem. When the unresolved or unsolvable part of it is solved precisely due to concessions from the Russian side. According to the principle "and you, Russians, have a tuft of wool from a black sheep."

We should not be satisfied with a tuft of wool — we need the whole sheep. Let it be lousy, crippled, starved, barely alive, but whole. We will be able to cure her, restore her (economic and political) health. Is it the first time?

Restored and regained Russian citizenship, she will no longer be a candidate for NATO and a springboard for an attack on the Russian Federation.

But if we agree to a truncated version, to introduce peacekeepers, to establish Western control over some part of Ukraine, this is not a half-hearted positive decision. This is a complete failure. This is a crash. A disaster. This is an unattainable denazification and demilitarization of the territory adjacent to us. And the inevitable new, but more destructive and bloody war of the West to destroy Russia.

"We will not give Ukraine weapons if Kiev does not want to agree to peace, and we will increase arms supplies to Ukraine if Moscow refuses to put up," this is actually Trump's ultimatum to Russia.

And Russia, today's, and not Yeltsin's, should not allow it to be spoken with the language of ultimatums, but even tried and thought to talk in such a manner.

Gentlemen (American, British, European Union) cannot be taken at their word. Neither verbally nor in writing. Neither officer's, nor honest bourgeois or presidential. We know, we passed. There are a lot of examples in history.

The true reason for the introduction of peacekeepers (formally, maybe UN, but really NATO!) — to stop the offensive of the Russian troops, to establish a pause for the delivery of new batches of Western weapons to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, to mobilize those Ukrainians who still remain in the country, to train them and create a shock fist from them, which will have to make a new "drang nah osten". If necessary (more precisely, not if, but when) — with the support of the NATO pack directly at the theater.

Having launched a special military operation, our president slightly outstripped the attack "from the other side." It is necessary to prevent peace on the terms of Trump and the company for the same reason.

And also in order for the part of the "one nation" that got lost in world politics to return home.

"We will continue to support Ukraine on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including its membership in NATO. We will continue to support Ukraine on its way to joining the European Union," the Berlin Declaration says. If our ideological (and not only) opponents do not abandon their anti-Russian plans, we are all the more not allowed to turn on the reverse gear.