Zelensky seems to believe that with U.S. financial backing,
he will be able to stalemate Putin virtually indefinitely, perhaps even in the
long run, obtain NATO membership. That’s something Trump opposes. Putin has attempted
several overtures at peace, which Zelensky has essentially blown off like, and
why not? He’s got the biggest bully in the world in his court, the United
States.
Trump used the meeting to make a very public statement to
Zelensky, the people of Ukraine, to Putin, and to the world---no more money, no
more armament and no mineral deal until Zelensky puts on his big boy pants and
can set down for a serious discussion about peace with Russia, otherwise we walk,
and he can deal with one very angry Russian bear.
NATO, which also heavily
depends on the US, can do as it pleases, but the US needs to set this one out
thank you very much should they continue to poke the bear (and kudos to Italy’s
Prime Minister, Georgia Meloni, for rejecting UK-French plan to send European
troops to Ukraine). It’s one thing to come to the aid of ally being attacked,
but when they bring it on themselves, maybe a lesson in “told-you-so” diplomacy
is in order.
Putin, on the other hand, has committed much of his military
to what amounts to a slow bleed of Ukraine’s economy and military. His has
activated antiquated weapon systems (such as outdated tanks) and even employed
North Korean troops in what amounts to a ”fight for food” deal for the bankrupt
Communist state.
Putin is not a spineless leader of the sort that Europe has
produced in abundance lately (for an example, look at their immigration
disaster and its effect on crime and their culture). Putin is very intelligent.
He was a senior KGB officer. He doesn’t bluff. Unlike European leaders, he
doesn’t care if you call him names. However,
since the fall of the USSR and Soviet Russia, their leaders, starting with Mikhail
Gorbachev, have tried once again to
build bridges to the West.
Ever since the days of Peter the Great, Russia has wanted to
join with the West and act as a bridge between East and West. At one point, they even asked to join NATO and was rejected
out of hand and perhaps justifiably so. With the end of the Cold War, there had
been a lot of talk about dismantling NATO.
Therefore, NATO’s justification for its continued existence depended
on having a bad guy and that bad guy is Putin. It’s also why many neo-cons and
policy gamers are anxious to start a new Cold War. War is profitable---cold or
hot. It bears mentioning that the establishment of the Warsaw Pact came about
only after the creation of NATO and then with the intention of being a
defensive deterrent, presumably against the same military and industrial
complex President Eisenhower spoke of in his 1961 “Farewell Address to the Nation”.
In 1990, as the Warsaw Pact nations began to fall, Secretary
of State James Baker informed Soviet Foreign Minister Edward Shevardnadze (in the presence of Gorbachev) that
once the unification of Germany was complete, NATO had no intention of advancing
“one inch to the east”, and yet within ten years, that’s exactly what happened.
Gorbachev saw it as a time to restart and one of openness or as he called it, “Perestroika”.
As Gorbachev said at the time, “we are duty bound to learn to live in peace”.
At first, the Russians were assured there would be no more,
until there was. But each time a country joined, NATO missiles were deployed
all along their border. As a result, Russia was slowly helmed in. It would be
like Russian missiles being deployed along our southern border, first in the numerous
Caribbean islands one by one, until finally, in Mexico along the Rio Grande.
What if the Russians started deploying missiles along the Canadian
border just like what happened after Norway and Denmark joined NATO in 1949,
Finland in 2023, or Sweden in 2024. How would you expect Washington would react?
Actually, you don’t even have to imagine. That was what the
1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was all about. It was Russia’s response to U.S.
nuclear tipped intermediate range “Jupiter” missiles previously being deployed
in Turkey (which had joined NATO in 1952).
Amusingly, then Soviet Premier Khrushchev would walk visitors
to his vacation home on the Black Sea to the balcony and hand them a pair of binoculars, asking “what do you see?”.
They typically replied, “I see the sky” or “I see the water”. He would then
look through the binoculars and bellow “I see American missiles in Turkey aimed
at my dacha!”.
Russian is taught in its schools and it’s the common
language of its people. It was followed by a plebiscite, asking the citizens
whether they wanted to remain apart of Russia or the Ukraine. The overwhelming
majority said “Russia”.
But this had nothing to do with the history of the region,
the will of the people, national sovereignty, or even the long standing
presence of the Russian military in and around Sebastopol. This was about oil
and gas, which had been discovered in abundance in the Black Sea, and western
oil companies wanted it.
In addition to large reserves of oil and gas, the Ukraine
has vast deposits of key minerals, much of it in the disputed Donbas Region which
is occupied by Russian troops. The deal President Trump was willing to sign
with President Zelensky would have allowed a U.S. presence in the Donbas
(technically still belonging to Ukraine) to mine for deposits valuable minerals,
with each country splitting the processes 50/50. It would enable the Ukraine to
begin paying the U.S. back some of the billions it owes us in aid, retain
Ukrainian soil, and help Ukraine to rebuild its infrastructure.
In addition, it would be an incentive for Putin’s troops to
either withdraw from the areas being explored and mined, or perhaps even pull
back altogether. After all, Putin doesn’t want to kill or injure U.S. civilians
at any cost. It would serve as a de facto “economic buffer zone” without the
need for a single pair of U.S. military boots on the ground and each side wins.
Even during the early stages of WWII, before the U.S. was
directly involved, Prime Minister Churchill gave the U.S. 99 year leases to
bases on their island possessions in the Caribbean as a “down payment” and “thank
you “ to all the war material and economic support we provided to England under
the Lend Lease Act of 1941 (the act also extended to the Republic of China,
France, the Soviet Union and other allied nations). As of
2024, we have given Ukraine $174.2 billion dollars in aid (military and
otherwise) while the European Union has given about $18 billion.
President Trump announced during his speech to Congress on
March 4th, that he had received a letter from Zelensky finally
agreeing to sit down with Putin and hammer out some sort of peace deal. It may
not be entirely to Zelensky’s liking, or that of Putin’s, but it will mean no
more killing on either side and ending the destruction of Ukrainian cities and
villages.
In addition, President Zelensky said in his letter to
President Trump that he was still willing to sign the minerals agreement, which
would be a good thing for the Ukrainian economy. Ukraine is a country with vast
untapped economic potential, from the oil and gas reserves it does control, to
its timber and mineral wealth, and it possesses the most fertile soil in Europe
and quite possibly the world. (hence the moniker “breadbasket of Europe”).
This was also an education of sorts for Zelensky about what
Otto von Bismarck called “Realpolitik”. Never disrespect your benefactor or
take them for granted. By that, don’t show up in casual slacks and t-shirt and “knock-around”
boots to meet the leader of a world power and expect to be given a virtual
blank check for a never-ending war without a plan to pay them back. America isn’t your ATM. Show some humility.
Even Churchill arrived dressed to the nines with hat in hand and he offered at
least island leases!
Thank you for reading
"Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant
middle". Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At
A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points. We
hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome,
provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning. Another
Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and
free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on
whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for
free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive
marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts
along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this
article. Thank you.
Zelensky vows to ‘make things right’ with
Trump and negotiate peace
How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansion
4 Lessons to be learned from Zelensky’s White House Meeting
What they said: Trump, Zelenskyy and Vance’s heated argumentin the Oval Office
Controversy regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATOexpansion
EU Assistance to Ukraine (in U.S. Dollars)
No suit, no lunch, no respect: Zelenskyy-Trump feud startwith a fashion dig
No comments:
Post a Comment