Published :
Updated :
For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
Donald Trump, the president of the United States (US), loves to talk and relishes showing himself talking to electronic media. That is the egotistical baggage he carries from his stint as the host of the television reality show, 'The Apprentice'. He has a naturally gifted big mouth to help him indulge in that most favourite of his pastime. Firstly, it was money that paved the way to his stardom as a television personality. Now, it is the power of the post that he holds as president of the US that makes it ineluctable for world leaders and media to listen to him. Even as he has morphed from a private into a public figure, Trump has not forgotten to entertain the world with his showmanship. He was simultaneously at his best (according to his reckoning) and at his worst (in the eyes of beholders) in the past few days, from Friday to Monday last in his incarnation as a maverick showman. 'Bizarre' is the word that comes closest to describing the shows (best and worst) put up by him first in Anchorage, Alaska and later, almost back to back, in the White House, Washington DC. The theme of the show was the same: a war called 'Ukraine'.
While campaigning for the presidency for the second term, Donald Trump indulged in hubris, boasting that if elected he would bring an end to the Ukraine war within days. Once installed in White House he soon found that his 'soul mate' Vladimir Putin on whom he was banking to pull off the magic of ending the war was not eager to oblige him by calling it a day on the battle front. Frustrated, his feelings for Putin waxed and waned as did his messianic zeal for the elusive peacemaking deal. At one point, seething with anger, he declared that he was washing his hands off from the war that was not America's. All help to Ukraine, in terms of money and weapons that continued under his predecessor's watch, was frozen, making President Zellensky and the European leaders supporting him very nervous. If his biased role as a peacemaker was alarming to them, the sudden withdrawal from the western alliance against Russia in the Ukraine war was extremely disconcerting. The European countries supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia realised that without America's participation, the war against Russia waged by Ukraine would grind to a halt.
No one knows for certain what happened next that made Trump very angry with Russia and led to his announcement of a deadline by which Russia had to reach a ceasefire deal on pain of 'serious consequences'. But before the deadline Trump sent his 'man for all seasons,' Steve Witkoff for troubleshooting to Moscow. Apparently, president Trump was playing footsy with Vladimir Putin. On Witkoff's return, president Trump suddenly announced that he was going to meet president Putin in Alaska next week to reach a deal on ceasefire. This took the European leaders by storm. They had been worried with president Trump's unilateralism in policy making and pursuit of his extremely nationalistic ideas about 'making America great again' to the neglect of collective interests of the West, not to speak of global interests. In respect of Ukraine, his fluctuating attitudes towards Russia have raised concerns as America has been the major contributor to Ukraine's efforts to regain territory lost to Russia after the latter opened the military onslaughts three years back. His initial conciliatory utterances in favour of Russia, particularly about ceding occupied Ukraine territory sent alarm bells in European capitals. This was assuaged by president Trump's subsequent ultimatum to Russia to effect a ceasefire or else face serious consequences. But the sudden announcement by president Trump about his summit meeting with President Putin in Alaska brought back the initial misgivings and anxieties to the pro-Ukraine European countries about his intentions and ideas about the 'deal' he was going to make with their bête noire - Vladimir Putin. The memory of Trump-Putin camaraderie during his first term as American president was not reassuring to them in any positive sense. His proclivity of making individual decisions in collective or regional matters, keeping allies in the dark, has been greatly upsetting to traditional Western leadership based on collegiality. It was with a good deal of nervousness that European leaders, backing president Zelensky unconditionally so far, received the news about the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska. What they saw in television was shocking and later what they heard from the horse's mouth (Donald Trump) after the summit took them by surprise, instilling apprehension.
The whole show put up in Anchorage, Alaska at first, complete with parked F-35 Jet fighters on the tarmac and fly over by B52 bomber and accompanying jet fighters was a throwback to a cowboy western where two arch enemies meet in an arranged showdown. But this was all appearances as threat and intimidation were overtaken by red carpet walk by president Putin and welcoming handclap by the host president, Donald Trump. The panoply of a full scale VVIP treatment meted out to a person who has been treated like a pariah by European leaders and even by President Trump's predecessor was anathema to them. What worried the European leaders most was the absence of the prince of Denmark, Ukrainian president Zelensky, as the high drama was being staged in Anchorage. When they heard from president Trump that 'ceasefire' was dropped as the main agenda and instead there was agreement to have a final peace settlement, the pro-Ukraine European leaders were all in the panic mode. To add to their discomfiture, Trump announced that after two days he was going to have a bilateral meeting with president Zelensky in the White House about the conditions of final peace agreement. Remembering the shabby treatment, humiliation and intimidation to which president Zelensky was subjected to during his first meeting with president Trump, the European leaders raised alarm in a chorus and declared territorial concessions should not be forced on Ukraine as the price for peace.
What happened next is only fit for a melodramatic television sit- com and not expected in real life high diplomacy. President Zelensky turned up in the White House on the appointed day ( Monday,18 August) wearing a military suit and was patronisingly received by a beaming president Trump. 'Once bitten twice shy', this time president Zelensky was not alone. Hot on his heels came the presidents of France, Finland, prime ministers of United Kingdom (UK), Italy, chancellor of Germany and heads of European Union (EU) and NATO -- all having wangled invitations from president Trump to be present at the second Act of the unfolding Ukraine drama. They came not for photo op with the 'welcoming' president but to protect their protégée Zellensky from being browbeaten by the 'hounds of White House', including their master, the president of the US. It was hilarious to see the manner of their hasty arrival like a bunch of school students and the looks of disorientation on their tired face. They were received at the entrance by a White House staff and not by president Trump or the vice president or a member of his cabinet. Once inside, president Trump joined them in the obligatory family photo shoot and then sat on two sides of a table very informally. It was so informal that it was hard to believe that the heads of the powerful countries and organisations in the world had gathered for serious discussion and not for afternoon tea.
After introductory remarks on how pleased and honoured he felt by the presence of the European leaders and assuring them that he would tell president Putin about his discussion with president Zelensky regarding a final peace agreement and arrange a tri-lateral meeting soon, president Trump invited president Zelensky to inform the meeting on what had been agreed on during the bilateral meeting between them earlier. Like a reformed school boy just coming out of the correctional room, president Zelensky said there would be a tri-lateral meeting with America, Russia and Ukraine soon where the issue of territory occupied by Russia would be discussed and security guarantee would be provided by America. His deadpan expression while mentioning the status of occupied territory was surprising and his acquiescence to the proposed trilateral solution looked suspicious as if he had been blackmailed. After president Zelensky spoke, president Trump invited the European leaders to speak. Out of the eight visiting dignitaries the president of France and the German Chancellor raised the issue of an immediate ceasefire and stressed how important it was for arriving at a negotiated peace agreement. They were not joined by other European leaders on this contention, revealing either lack of preparation among them on the issues to be discussed or disagreements about the same. Most surprising was the omission of the issue of territory occupied by Russia in the statements made by the European leaders. This was the issue that agitated their minds in the first place and they had earlier demanded in one voice that no territorial arrangement should be finalised without the consent of Ukraine. They had all come to Washington to press home this very point and yet when the occasion arose they remained silent on this.
If the posture of president Trump before his summit with president Putin and in the meeting with the European leaders was bizarre it was not less so in the case of the European leaders. The issue of territory is the most crucial in any peace agreement ending the Ukraine war and they were seized with this issue before when president Trump invited president Zelensky to come to Washington for discussion on a peace agreement. In the White House 'meeting' that took place informally they seemed satisfied with American security guarantee for Ukraine in lieu of NATO membership as if that was the only issue they wanted to be assured about. There is no doubt that security guarantee as a substitute for NATO membership is very important. But so is the issue of the future of territory occupied by Russia. The countries of Europe having common borders with Russia should be interested in this because whatever is decided on this may become a precedent applicable to them in future eventualities. For NATO as a whole this is important because under Article 5 any member country under attack calls for collective action. Given this overriding importance what could they have proposed about Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia?
It seems apart from the improbable option of agreeing to Russia's outright possession of occupied territory the possibilities that suggest themselves feasible are the following :(a) Ukraine leases out Crimea to Russia for 99 years against payment of lease money that includes partly war reparations; (b) Ukraine allows the occupied area autonomous status with links to its central authority in Kyev; or (c) Ukraine allows the occupied area to be an independent state that is demilitarised and neutral.
There may already be a plan for redrawing the geographical map of eastern Ukraine given to Ukraine by president Trump because a reference to this was made in the meeting between him and president Zelensky in the last White House meeting. Needless to say, in order to be a basis for negotiation for peace it should not be a Hobson's choice for president Zelensky. His European allies should throw their weight behind a just and pragmatic solution of the territorial issue. With security guarantee on the cards, Ukraine's NATO membership can be put in the backburner or mothballed for the archive.
President Trump's showmanship now faces the crucible of real politic. As in his previous reality TV show he just cannot shout to a participant in peace negotiation 'you are fired'. He is playing a poker game where all the players have 'cards'.