Putin tests the West in Ukraine: does Trump threaten the collapse?

Putin tests the West in Ukraine: does Trump threaten the collapse?

Winston Churchill, the British war guide, once said that he was optimist, because it has no point in being something else. In the upcoming year in ukraine-rone-drone-missile-stack-intl-hnk/index.html"> The Ukraine is an almost exaggerated, perhaps also deliberate positivity of Kiev and-at least public-in parts of NATO that the upcoming Trump-Weißhaus may cause significant diplomatic change.

The crucial role of US support

The actors have hardly any choice because the extent of American support will decide on the outcome of this war. Trump's closest advisory group is anything but convinced and seems to be hesitant to continue the current, almost appropriate level of support from the bid administration. Nevertheless, Moscow's balance sheet in relation to negotiations and peace about a decade about a decade in Ukraine Grund to be caution, if not too cynicism.

optimistic peace suggestions

Keith Kellogg, the Ukraine special representative of the future US President Donald Trump, has presented the basic principles of an optimistic peace plan in a political paper that he wrote for a think tank in April. This includes a ceasefire, the participation of Ukraine in conversations as a condition for further military aids and a possible demilitarized zone to freeze the current front lines. The plan focuses on Moscow's participation to end the war and does not deal with the main problem - that Ukraine needs more weapons than NATO can provide. Nevertheless, US allied Kellogg's suggestions look seriously in order to be at least prepared.

NATO troops in Ukraine?

A European defense officer announced that there are “active conversations” about how NATO countries could send troops to help with a demilitarized zone if this becomes part of a peace agreement. Western officials often emphasize that Moscow is reluctant to start a large -scale conflict with NATO.

Perhaps the presence of some NATO troops along the Ukrainian front lines could prevent the Kremlin from progressing slowly-despite a ceasefire, as was the case in the past. On Monday, President Wolodymyr Selenskyj said that he spoke to his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron about the sending of "partner quotas" of troops to Ukraine. Paris recently expressed the idea of ​​sending French troops for training to Ukraine, but Ukrainian media further speculate that this could indicate the germ of a NATO peace safety force.

diplomatic solutions

On Sunday, the upcoming national security advisor Trump, Mike Waltz, commented on ABC News the war in Ukraine and emphasized: "Everyone knows that this has to end somehow diplomatically." His statements were taken up by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lawrov on Tuesday, who said, this means that the Trump team is concerned with "Reality on site", as Reuters reported.

challenges for the NATO unit

Trump will take over a NATO alliance in which he has expressed skepticism and in which the uniform message begins to crumble to support Ukraine. While the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz broke through a phone call for months of diplomatic silence by Russia's President Vladimir Putin, the easternmost NATO members are aware of the threat by a Kremlin, which is encouraged by partially adhered to the ceasefire. They remain focused on considering Moscow permanent defeat as the best way to ensure European security.

higher operations for European security

Kaja Kallas, the former Estonian Prime Minister and now the high representative of the EU for foreign policy and security, said CNN from Rome that she was convinced that Ukraine could win with the right help. "The operations for European security are exceptionally high," she emphasized. "The extent of the hybrid attacks in Europe has already increased, and a defeat of Ukraine would cost us a lot more than the support." She warned that Putin does not have any respect for international law and that one could not trust him.

The reality of the peace negotiations

Russia's earlier promise of peace in Ukraine were characterized by deception, which indicates that a ceasefire could only exist on paper. At the first invasion of 2014, the Crimea was taken over by a small group of "green men", the Ukrainian bases overwhelmed on the peninsula while contesting Russian military. (Putin later admitted that they were).

The "uprisings" led by mercenaries, which in the following months took parts of the Donbas region, were also a convincing pretext for Moscow Annexion. Russia often inspired its military goals and at the same time spoke of peace, and in February 2015 it completed its push into the strategically important city of Debalzewe, in the middle of the peace talks in Minsk, and took the city during the first days of a ceasefire.

teaching from the past

Those who were on site back then remember a faulty process. Alexander Hug, who led the OSCE observation mission, who monitored the ceasefire from 2014-15, said: "No ceasefire is perfect. Violations will inevitably occur. The crucial question is what provides with regard to sanctions and remedial measures." He explained that when one side could do it with impunity, "you have an open invitation to more of the same."

he added: "The situations then and now are not the same", but the "important teachings that were drawn ten years ago also apply today." Moscow's story has changed drastically in the past ten years, as has the number of losses. In 2014, Putin often stated that he had no influence on the "separatist uprisings", and the Russian military suffered relatively few losses in significant territorials. While the war strives towards his fourth year, Western officials estimate that Russia's gradual profits on the front to add up to 1,500 deaths and injuries every day. The number of war dead approaches 700,000, according to British Ministry of Defense .

struggle for the perception of war reality

The Kremlin has also portrayed the war as an existential battle against the entire NATO, perhaps to justify its declining performance. On the other hand, NATO has never sent troops into conflict, but only less coveted equipment. This imbalance in the perception of the conflict will distort the negotiating table. Russia simply has more to lose than NATO, which could make Putin more difficult to accept smaller concessions from Kiev in the talks, and instead strive for larger profits.

uncertainties in the Middle East

There is hopes that Trump's unpredictability and the obvious willingness to avoid repetition of embarrassing US defeats such as the withdrawal from Kabul during his term of office could lead to seeing Putin failure. However, this would require that the future president reversed two important constants in his attitude: the intention of not publicly annoying the Kremlin chief, and the endeavor to reduce US participation in foreign conflicts.

Kyiv and other NATO members strive for the idea of ​​“peace through strength”. But the greater risk this year is a slower, even cruel diplomatic process, while Putin's imperfect compliance with ceasefire and likely continuing, smaller territorial gains divide the allies of Ukraine and prevent them from deciding which level of violation of NATO would justify.

The hesitant reaction of NATO

like 2014, would you go to war because of the Crimea or Debalzewe? If NATO or European troops are stationed along a demilitarized zone, which would justify a NATO revenge against another nuclear power. Would the Trump Weißhaus agree with its European allies?

and as soon as the unity and intensity of the support for Kiev begin to disappear through NATO and European governments begin to change, it could be difficult to revive them. Putin knows this and has already exploited it. But only now does he have such an obvious sympathizer in the White House like Donald Trump.

Putin's time pressure

Time could not be quite on Putin's side, given the fast loss of Russian life, financial reserves and an economy that is heavily overheated due to military recruitment bonuses and dies. In the course of this year, however, the Kremlin boss will see the one constant that the clock in Moscow ticked the loudest - the uniform support of NATO for Ukraine - and turn into slow, generous diplomacy, which he already exploited in 2014. Combined with Russia's brutal and slow persistence on the battlefield, this could be enough to push it in the direction of the victory he needs.