Trump’s initiative for ending Russia-Ukraine ‘war’ makes some progress

Trump stated that his advice to Zelensky would be ‘to make a deal’ hinting that Ukraine would have to make some concessions. His remark that European nations must also get involved a little bit’ to push the peace agenda is in line with this thinking. Expressing confidence in the outcome of the Alaska summit, he offered to join a future Putin-Zelensky meeting if the two sides so desired

The high-stakes summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, at the largest US military facility in Alaska on August 15, can be said to have ended on a positive note, even as no immediate step towards a ceasefire was announced.

They held a joint press conference to make the point that the meeting was productive but did not take questions for obvious reasons- Putin described the meeting as ‘a starting point’ for getting to a solution of the Russia-Ukraine ‘conflict’.

The Russian President acknowledged Trump’s sincerity of purpose by emphasising that the latter’s move would, in any case, help to sustain a ‘business-like and pragmatic’ relationship between Russia and US.

President Trump remarked with his characteristic candour that ‘both sides made great progress’, added that ‘a number of points had been agreed upon’ and commented lightheartedly that ‘there is no deal unless there is a deal’. One gets the impression that the meeting at Alaska was marked by a personal bonhomie between Trump and Putin, reflected best in the Russian President’s remark that ‘he agreed with Trump that there would have been no Russia-Ukraine war if the latter had been the US President’. The US President informed the press after the summit that he would soon be meeting the Ukrainian President and his NATO allies to carry forward the agenda set at Alaska. The two leaders envisaged another meeting between them, Putin saying ‘maybe in Moscow’ and Trump replying with good humour that ‘he might get a little heat on that one’. Trump and Putin shared the view that the Biden Administration unfairly went after Russia in its belief that Putin had taken an interest in the US Presidential election of 2020 in favour of Trump.

Significantly, President Putin agreed that Ukraine should have security guarantees and added that these could be worked out. Ukraine's President attaches great importance to such guarantees. Putin hoped that the European allies of Ukraine would not ‘throw a wrench in the works’. This may be seen in the backdrop of President Zelensky pressing for the grant of NATO membership to Ukraine, to which President Putin was firmly opposed. Putin, at the same time, felt confident that President Trump understood Russia’s ‘national interests’. Trump announced that the Alaska summit had reached an understanding on ‘many, many’ points and added that ‘on a couple of big ones we have not quite got there, but we have made some headway’. The summit apparently went into many details and made a strategic evaluation of the expectations on both sides.

Trump stated that his advice to Zelensky would be ‘to make a deal’ hinting that Ukraine would have to make some concessions. His remark that European nations must also get involved a little bit’ to push the peace agenda is in line with this thinking. Expressing confidence in the outcome of the Alaska summit, he offered to join a future Putin-Zelensky meeting if the two sides so desired.

Trump’s personal initiative towards pushing the three-and -a-half year old Ukraine-Russia conflict closer to a peaceful course can be appreciated- he had even called President Putin in the midst of the Aug 18 meeting at the White House to get the latter to agree with the idea of ‘security guarantees’ for Ukraine.

That a serious, worthwhile attempt is being made at the level of US President to work for a peaceful outcome of the world’s biggest military confrontation of the present -that was widely seen as having the potential for sparking off WW3 in the Biden era- has to be acknowledged. While a ‘ceasefire’ may not materialise unless there was a clear ‘peace package’ in sight, some sort of ‘self restraint’ on both sides can certainly be demonstrated. Though President Putin seems to be resolute about not letting go of the Russian hold on Donbas, a package of strategic steps offering some territorial readjustment could be worked on. These would include-promise of reconstruction of Ukraine, exchange of civilians taken away as prisoners on both sides, a readjustment in Crimea, stationing of Peace Keeping Force in the border region between Russia and Ukraine and a more benign role for EU to the exclusion of NATO.

Maintaining a democratic regime in Ukraine through the principle of ‘one man one vote’ should, to an extent, remove misgivings in Putin’s camp that the Russian-speaking population might be mistreated by the Zelensky regime.

A certain degree of federal autonomy for various regions of Ukraine might be of help in all of this. The call for withdrawal of Russian troops to their side of the border may not be accepted by Putin, as he was looking to retain an effective presence in the occupied territories of Ukraine. However, with the adoption of measures suggested above, President Trump may be able to soften the Russian President’s attitude of adamance on this matter.

Meanwhile, some ‘tit for tat’ kind of attacks by Ukraine and Russia have occurred-these are more of a manifestation of the desire on both sides not to give any impression of ‘weakness’ when an attempt was being made by the US President to prepare the groundwork for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Russia made a drone attack on Kyiv on August 28, causing a few casualties was clearly a message to the Ukrainian President not to overestimate his position.

Donald Trump may be inclined to be relatively tough with Zelensky, but Putin also would have to prove that he was interested in peace. The major progress made so far is the result of a clear message from President Trump that the US did not support the idea of Ukraine joining NATO and a perceptible toning down of the anti-Russian rhetoric by European countries. The latter remain distrustful of the Russian President, who was for good reasons equally suspicious of NATO powers. It is not going to be easy to devise the format of a mutually acceptable peace proposal for Russia and Ukraine.

All eyes will be on a possible bilateral or trilateral meeting between the Presidents of the ‘warring’ nations, with US President facilitating it. Trump is also driven by his personal agenda of securing recognition as ‘the peace-maker of the world’.

India, on its part, has tried to ensure that the tariff issue linked with the purchase of Russian oil by India did not adversely affect the prospect of a peaceful resolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. India is rightly projecting the Indo-Russian relationship as a mark of exercise of national sovereignty by a non-aligned India that wanted bilateral friendships with all . The real challenge for the protagonists of peace lies in creating a level playing field between Ukraine and Russia to ensure that no side would claim ‘total victory’.

(The writer is a former Director Intelligence Bureau)