Donald Trump, if he wins the US presidential election, seems to plan to apply the scenario “land for peace“ in Ukraine. And although this plan may seem realistic and attractive to the Republican leader, it will fail at every stage of its implementation, writes The Hill.
Trump has promised that if he is re-elected president, he will end the war in Ukraine “in 24 hours”. Imagine: Ukrainians give up land, Russians agree to peace, and everyone lives happily ever after. No wonder former President Donald Trump says he can do it in 24 hours. However, there are major flaws in this plan.
Trump is likely to blackmail Ukraine by suspending US aid to bring it to the negotiating table. But Kiev also receives significant military aid from European partners and can survive on it, The Hill claims.
Trump also wants to force Russia to participate in the negotiations through blackmail - threats that, on the contrary, they will increase the supply of weapons to Ukraine. However, Trump himself has created such a reputation that Moscow will simply not believe in his willingness to help Ukraine to the detriment of Russia and will perceive threats as an empty bluff.
But even if each side agrees to negotiate so as not to look like a warmonger compared to the adversary, this does not guarantee the effectiveness of those negotiations.
The debate about “land for peace“ will be fought around one main question: how much land for what peace? The only thing we can say for sure is that the Ukrainians will want to give up as little land as possible for as much peace as possible, while the Russians will want to keep as much land as possible for as little peace as possible.
No external power or arbiter could reconcile the two parties at will. Russia will never agree to NATO being this arbiter, Ukraine will not agree to Chinese mediation. It is ridiculous to talk about the UN or, for example, about Hungary.
The only viable option to end this war is to take the side of one of the two warring countries, the author of the publication believes. And he adds that a victory for Ukraine “would obviously be better” for a number of well-known reasons.