It is interesting that those who rightly advocate for the victims of the violence in Gaza do not do so with the same conviction and fervor towards the Ukrainians, who have been suffering from barbaric attacks for the third year. From Daniel Smilov:
Last year, Bulgarians, and many of the world's "peacemakers" crossed themselves and prayed for Donald Trump to win the US elections because he had promised to stop the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Later it turned out that Trump had said this "sarcastically", as he himself stated. But the interesting thing was that the Bulgarian "peacemakers" were not worried about the postponement of the end of the war and even stopped insisting on it. It quickly became clear that by "end of the war" they simply imagine the US and Europe stopping aid to Ukraine.
The false "peace-loving"
In fact, this is what the "peace-loving" are fighting for in large part: for Russia to win the war in Ukraine. Because it is clear that if Western aid stops, Ukraine will not withstand Russian attacks for long. Why the "peace-loving" want a Russian victory is not entirely clear. In the Bulgarian case, a Russian victory would put us in dangerous proximity to an aggressive Asian-type dictatorship. There are no reasonable arguments for Bulgarians to want this. But that is exactly what some do.
Therefore, it is time to clearly state that behind the mask of false "peace-loving" is actually a support for Putin's expansion through military conquest of territories. Putin's current proposal to meet with Donald Trump for supposedly peace talks once again demonstrates well the difference between the false search for peace, which simply aims to provide an opportunity to continue aggressive policies, and genuine concern for the fate of millions of people.
What has Trump achieved for Ukraine in the last six months?
In fact, the logical steps to stop the war that Trump and his administration should have taken were three:
1) Trump and the MAGA movement should not have boycotted the sending of timely and sufficient military aid to Ukraine. To a large extent, they did this through their influence in Congress already during the Biden administration. It was the hope that their political line would prevail that gave Putin the courage to continue the war for years despite the obvious difficulties facing the Russian economy;
2) After Trump was elected president, the new administration could have given Putin an ultimatum - a ceasefire or a significant increase in military aid to Ukraine. Such an ultimatum was not given to Russia, although Trump did not hesitate to engage directly in military action against Iran. That is, his administration did not shy away from escalating conflicts and ultimatums - this approach is simply not used against Russia;
3) Trump's tariffs could have been instrumentalized to put pressure on Moscow. Trump himself threatened to impose heavy duties of up to 100% on countries that buy Russian oil. This ultimatum was supposed to expire and be implemented a few days ago. But it did not happen. It is true that 25% tariffs were imposed on India, but this seems to be part of the overall strategy to negotiate new trade rules with that country. It is not clear what is happening with China, but the truth is that Trump has imposed high tariffs on whomever he wants, without having used this tool to put serious pressure on Russia.
Against the backdrop of these unprecedented policies, what actually happened was that Europe took on the financial burden of military aid to Ukraine, and Trump concluded an agreement with Ukraine for the use of its valuable mineral resources. There was pressure on Ukraine, and quite serious pressure - it was expressed in a temporary suspension of military aid and the sharing of intelligence information. There were also media attacks on Zelensky, including a disgusting performance in the White House aimed at humiliating him.
The result of all this was that for more than six months Russia slowly advanced and conquered new Ukrainian territories. The war was not stopped, and its intensity even increased, without the "peace lovers" being at all worried about it.
What is expected from the Trump-Putin meeting?
This is the gloomy background against which, after the expiration of Trump's so-called ultimatum to Putin, it was announced that a meeting between the two was being prepared in Alaska. Why there, why between them, and how Putin deserved this honor are interesting questions in themselves. More problematic, however, is that Putin does not seem to have agreed to a ceasefire at all, but simply proposes that Ukraine give up its heavily fortified lines in Donetsk, only in exchange for the start of some negotiations. There have also been allegations that Trump's envoy Witkoff did not fully understand what Putin was actually proposing, which he summarized as a "territory swap". Indeed, the Russian side has never before expressed a willingness to exchange anything with Ukraine.
In general, it is not clear what is so attractive about Putin's proposal that Ukraine give up defensive lines that it has successfully held for three years, that it requires a direct meeting between Trump and Putin, which in itself would legitimize the aggressor. It is also unclear what happened to the grand ultimatums that Trump mentioned - perhaps they were simply "sarcastic".
So far, it is not known at all what solution to the conflict Trump is proposing, nor what steps he is willing to take to pressure Russia to accept this solution. Until there is clarity on these two issues, any bilateral meetings will simply be buying time for the continuation of Putin's aggressive war against Ukraine.
It is true that Trump loves ambiguity in negotiations, loves the constructive ambiguity of his positions. But the interesting thing is that while he is ready to impose disproportionate tariffs as a negotiating strategy with other countries, at least so far his negotiating policy with Russia has been predictably toothless. The announcement of the change in the status of the two nuclear submarines was the only more harsh action on the American side, but it came after former Russian President Medvedev's decidedly mocking statements against him. Here too, the roles are reversed: Trump is usually mocking and disrespectful, but not towards Russia.
Where are the Bulgarian peacemakers now?
One would expect our peacemakers to call on Trump every day to really stop the war, by putting Russia before a difficult choice. However, they - in their majority, led by figures like President Radev - seem to be satisfied with the continuation of the aggressive war and the slow shifting of the front in Russia's favor. That is why they are in no hurry to end the war.
And for another part of them, there is now a new moral cause, which is the situation in Gaza. Indeed, Israel's actions there are disproportionate. Whether they can be qualified as genocide and crimes against humanity is a separate issue, but in any case, these are serious violations of international law and justice. But the commitment to the Gaza cause is not an excuse for turning a blind eye to another aggression - the war in Ukraine. Whoever criticizes Netanyahu should be an even more fierce critic of Putin and his direct aggression against a sovereign state.
The existence of Israel - the only democracy in the Middle East region - is also crucially important for Bulgaria. Bulgaria has also recognized the Palestinian state in 1988 - a measure that some Western European countries have yet to take. All this makes the Israeli-Palestinian case very complicated, especially when it comes to a long-term solution that is balanced and takes into account the interests of everyone. It is questionable, however, how those who rightly advocate for the victims of the violence in Gaza do not do so with the same conviction and fervor towards the Ukrainians, who have been suffering from barbaric attacks on civilian objects for the third year in a row.
Beyond this, we can only hope that the Trump-Putin meeting will lead to a fair, albeit temporary, solution to the tragedy in Ukraine. There is little reason for optimism based on publicly available information. Let us hope that there are positives hidden in the unknown.
This comment expresses the personal opinion of the author and may not coincide with the positions of the Bulgarian editorial office and DW as a whole.