Can Trump immediately end the Russian-Ukrainian war when he takes office? This may be an illusion.

Original Zhao long’s bottom line thinking

Text/Observer Network columnist Zhao Long

Deputy Director and Researcher, Institute of Global Governance, Shanghai Institute of International Studies

Since the beginning of the year, the mentality changes of the United States, Europe, Russia, Ukraine and other parties about the Ukrainian crisis have gone through several obvious stages. On the one hand, "Ukraine can’t lose" is still the clearest target bottom line for the United States, Europe and Ukraine; On the other hand, strategic anxiety and war fatigue are constantly affecting social and political consensus, especially reflected in the domestic political agenda of some countries.

In this context, is a "long ceasefire" equal to a "long peace"? How to define the standard of victory and failure? How to evaluate the future applicability of "East-West Germany" and "Peninsula Model" in Ukraine is no longer a taboo topic discussed by all parties.

After Trump won the election, his campaign slogan of "ending the Ukrainian crisis within 24 hours" ignited the expectations of all parties for a ceasefire.

On November 16th, local time, Ukrainian President Zelensky said in an interview with the media that he was convinced that the war would end "faster than before" after Trump took office, and Ukraine would "make every effort to ensure that the war would end next year".

It is undeniable that in the Trump 2.0 period, Russia and Ukraine resumed some form of contact and even started ceasefire negotiations, which is worth looking forward to. To put it simply, Trump’s position on the Ukrainian crisis may include three aspects:

First, by threatening to interrupt aid, Ukraine was forced to return to the negotiating table and asked to make non-sovereign compromises on territorial issues;

Second, let Europe bear more economic costs, including expanding the procurement of American weapons to aid Ukraine and the main part of the funds needed for post-war reconstruction in Ukraine;

The third is to "freeze conflicts" based on Russia’s actual control line and persuade Russia to complete the transaction.

However, there seems to be some illusion that Trump can quickly end the war. In fact, Trump’s return is a necessary condition for Ukraine to achieve peace, but it is not a sufficient condition. Because although all parties support the resumption of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, there are many differences on what to talk about and how to talk about it.

For example, Europe insists that negotiations must be "beneficial to Ukraine", while Russia emphasizes "based on territorial reality" and the Istanbul Consensus in April 2022. Countries in the south of the world emphasize a ceasefire as soon as possible from the perspective of reducing casualties. According to the experience of various regional conflicts and local wars in the past, after the parties resume contact, they still need to complete a temporary ceasefire, start negotiations, establish a demilitarized zone, sign a ceasefire agreement, and establish an international supervision mechanism, so as to achieve lasting peace.

At the same time, the huge casualties suffered by Russia and Ukraine on the battlefield in the past three years and the contradiction of sovereignty over 18% of Ukraine’s total territory have determined that it is difficult for a single country or individual to achieve a ceasefire and stop the war on its own.

For Trump and his "MAGA" (Make America Great Again) line, reducing the economic cost paid by the American people for the Ukrainian crisis is the core concern. If Europe is willing to bear more economic costs and increase the purchase of American weapons to aid Ukraine, Trump may not exclude the Ukrainian crisis from continuing in a low-intensity way for the sake of maximizing his own interests. Even if the United States completely stops aid, Europe’s commitment and determination to support Ukraine cannot be underestimated, including continuing to break through legal disputes and using frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine.

What’s more, the "peace plan" proposed by Trump and his team involves "establishing a demilitarized zone according to the existing contact line, Ukraine’s commitment not to join NATO within 20 years, and establishing a ceasefire monitoring mechanism with the participation of a third party". These potential plans have been discussed many times in various second-track dialogues, and they are not very creative new ideas. Among them, European countries, not the United States, are responsible for supervising the implementation of the ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, and the vague statements on sensitive issues such as territorial control and ownership have led all parties to question the enforceability of the "peace plan."

For Russia, compared with the political and economic costs caused by the delay of the war, a simple "freezing conflict" may not be the best option. Before Trump takes office, Russia may launch a new wave of offensive against Ukraine, and set the main goal as to recover the "lost land" in Kursk region, and strive to limit the focus of future negotiations to the areas that Russia has not controlled in the four eastern Ukrainian States, instead of simply ceasing fire according to the actual contact line.

The most important thing is that Putin and the establishment forces in Russia have absolute distrust of the United States and Europe and will not be easily satisfied with signing the 3.0 version of the Minsk Agreement under the political commitment of the United States and Europe. This is why the future peace plan cannot be limited to the coordination between Russia, Ukraine, the United States and Europe, and other countries need to participate.

On November 19, local time, some pictures of the explosion of GRAU armory appeared on overseas social platforms.

It is worth noting that out of concern that Trump may force Ukraine to compromise with Russia after taking office, Biden will not only consider how to characterize the Ukrainian crisis as a "legacy" in the last two months of his administration, especially how to unite allies to contain Russia’s achievements, but also pay attention to how to create a "trap", vigorously promote NATO to fulfill its existing military aid commitments, and strengthen Ukraine’s offensive and defensive capabilities on the battlefield and its negotiating position outside the battlefield.

At the same time, Biden may tolerate or even let the limited controllable escalation of the battlefield, preventing Trump from making a deal with Russia as a "abandoned child". Recently, Biden’s lifting of Ukraine’s restrictions on using long-range weapons aided by the United States to attack targets in Russia is an example of this change in position. On November 19th, the "RBC- Ukraine" news agency quoted an insider of the Ukrainian army as saying that the Ukrainian army had used ATACMS to attack a military facility near Karachev, Bryansk, Russia.

At the same time, the military cooperation between Russia and North Korea has aroused great concern from all sides at a critical period when the Ukrainian crisis may enter "talking while fighting".

Theoretically, the military cooperation between Russia and the DPRK under the framework of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty belongs to the category of bilateral relations in nature, and the article 4 of the Treaty concerning "military mutual assistance" cannot be simply equated with the NATO standard "military alliance". According to the Treaty, when Russia and the DPRK provide military assistance to each other in the face of aggression or in a state of war, it is necessary to comply with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and relevant domestic laws.

Judging from the background and content of the signing of the Treaty, it remains to be seen whether military cooperation based on similar environmental perception, interest perception and strategic needs can solve the shortcomings of the fragility and singleness of mutually beneficial relations.

On November 16th, the Financial Times quoted the Ukrainian intelligence assessment report as saying that North Korea had provided Russia with 50 170mm M1989 self-propelled howitzers and 20 upgraded 240mm multi-barrel rocket launching systems. The picture shows the "main gun" shot in Russia.

For China, such cooperation may strengthen the linkage between "European security" and "Asian security", and provide more "reasons" for NATO members in Europe to strengthen their substantive presence in the Asia-Pacific region. If the military cooperation between Russia and the DPRK goes beyond the geographical restrictions, it may break the consensus that a third country does not directly intervene in the Ukrainian crisis, causing concern about the spillover of the battlefield and the escalation of war.

Considering the high political sensitivity of this issue, it is believed that Russia will give priority to its own territory in positioning military cooperation, and may refer to the mode of NATO’s military advisers, technicians and various mercenaries and volunteers stationed in Ukraine to create a "gray zone" for military mutual assistance, so as to avoid sending North Korean soldiers to eastern Ukraine to directly participate in combat, thus triggering a qualitative change in the Ukrainian crisis.

What needs to be made clear is that China’s main concern is to ensure that there will be no war and chaos on the peninsula and that the "battlefield will not spill over, the war will not escalate, and all parties will not fire" in the Ukrainian crisis.

Since creating the image of "President of Peace" may become one of the main contents of Trump’s political legacy, he may seek positive interaction with China in order to promote the Ukrainian crisis, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the relaxation and stability of the situation on the peninsula after taking office. The dialogue between China and the United States on these international and regional hot issues is also expected to become a lubricant for the fierce struggle between the two countries on issues such as economy, trade, science and technology.

But frankly speaking, Trump’s interest in bringing China into the Ukrainian peace process may be limited until his unilateral "persuasion and promotion of talks" encounters resistance or even fails.

Continue to slide to see the next touch to read the original text.

Bottom line thinking slides up to see the next one.

Original title: "Trump can immediately end the Russian-Ukrainian war when he takes office? This may be an illusion.

Read the original text

Biden’s trip to the Middle East was met with a cold shoulder: protests broke out in many countries, the meeting was cancelled, and public opinion was everywhere in the United States.

  As the Palestinian-Israeli conflict enters the third week, all parties pay more and more attention to the conflict. According to CCTV news reports, on October 20, local time, US President Biden, who had just visited Israel, applied to the US Congress to pass a special budget bill, increasing the budget by 105 billion US dollars for the overall assistance programs in Ukraine, Israel and strengthening America’s own security.

  It is worth noting that Biden’s move was put forward after his embarrassing trip to the Middle East. On the 18th, Biden arrived in Israel to visit many countries in the Middle East. However, the Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza was attacked, and Jordan and other countries cancelled the scheduled high-level meeting. This move undoubtedly gave Biden a cold shoulder during his trip to the Middle East, and Arab countries’ dissatisfaction with Israel and the United States was also evident.

  Multinational leaders cancel meeting with Biden

  According to Xinhua News Agency, Jordan announced in the early morning of October 18th that it would cancel the meeting of the leaders of Palestine, Jordan, Egypt and the United States scheduled for that day in Amman. Earlier, the Palestinian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that Israeli warplanes attacked the Ahli Arab Hospital (also known as Baptist Hospital) in the Gaza on the evening of 17th, while the Israeli military said that Israel had intelligence that rockets from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Jehad) mistakenly hit the Gaza Baptist Hospital. However, Jehad denied the Israeli allegations.

  After the attack on the Gaza hospital, the National Security Council issued a statement saying that the US government believed that the Israelis were not responsible for the incident. During his visit to Israel, Biden also promised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the United States would continue to support Israel.

  Biden’s attitude caused dissatisfaction among Arab countries. According to the Global Times, Biden’s previous itinerary included a visit to Jordan after his visit to Israel, and a meeting with the King of Jordan, the Egyptian President and the Palestinian President at a summit in Amman, Jordan, to discuss how to ease the situation between Palestine and Israel. However, the attack on the Gaza hospital and the United States’ position of favoring Israel caused public anger in Arab countries, and the three countries announced that they would cancel their meeting with Biden.

  Abdel-Khalek Abdul Khaleq Abdulla, a retired professor of political science and a member of Emirati Thinkers in the United Arab Emirates, pointed out that Arab countries were shocked by Biden’s position of "protecting" Israel. "Now I feel that the United States is an accomplice in various crimes against Palestinians." He added, "Arab countries are now trying to ignore Biden and avoid meeting him."

  The Jordanian government also issued a statement saying that the summit will be rescheduled after all parties agree to end the "massacre of Palestinians". "It is not good for anyone to hold a summit at this time, and it is not good for the end of the war, so we decided to cancel this meeting." Ayman Safadi, Jordan’s foreign minister, said.

  Protests broke out in many countries in the Middle East.

  Many countries in the Middle East have expressed strong dissatisfaction with the attack on Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al Sisi expressed strong concern and condemnation of the attack on the hospital. King Abdullah II of Jordan strongly condemned the Israeli air raid on the hospital in Gaza and warned that the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict "has entered a dangerous stage". Queen Rania Abdullah of Jordan posted on social platforms that she was "shocked" by the explosion.

  "This massacre is a war crime, an insult to mankind and a stain on the world conscience." Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the attack "the latest example of Israel’s lack of the most basic human values in its actions".

  In addition to official statements, protests and rallies broke out in many countries. People from Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Syria and other countries took to the streets to launch protests against the United States and Israel. The embassies of the United States and Israel in Lebanon, Jordan and other countries were also surrounded by the assembly crowd. Protesters used various slogans to express their anger against Israel, and many diplomatic institutions in the United States and Israel were even set on fire. Anger even spread to North Africa, and protests against the United States and Israel took place in Tunisia, Morocco and Libya, with thousands of people participating.

  "Against occupation! Say no to the United States! " Tens of thousands of Iraqi protesters gathered in Tahrir Square in Baghdad, waving the flags of Palestine and Iraq, and a huge Israeli flag was placed on the ground for protesters to trample on.

  The same thing happened in Iran. Thousands of Iranians gathered in the capital Tehran, holding the flags of Palestine and Hezbollah and shouting slogans to show their support for Palestine. In Jordan, thousands of people gathered around the Israeli Embassy in Amman. People took to the streets to condemn Israel’s continuous bombing of the Gaza Strip, and protesters tried to attack the Israeli Embassy. Jordanian police had to use tear gas to disperse them.

  Us "safe passage" proposal attracts dissatisfaction from Jordan and Egypt

  In addition to the attack on Gaza Hospital, the proposal of "safe passage" in the United States is also one of the reasons why countries in the Middle East have lost enthusiasm for Biden’s visit. Egypt and Israel border on Palestine, and both countries strongly oppose the U.S. plan to establish a safe passage for Palestinians fleeing from Gaza on the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt bordering Gaza.

  Since the escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on October 7, the United States has been trying to discuss with Jordan and Egypt about the establishment of a "safe corridor", but the implementation of the plan has been frequently blocked because of the interests of all parties involved. Biden once said that during his visit to Israel, he talked with Egyptian leaders to discuss the opening of Rafah port for material transportation and personnel evacuation, but in the end, Egypt only agreed to the proposal of restarting the port to transport humanitarian relief supplies.

  The proposal of the United States to establish a "safe passage" has aroused anger in the Arab world. According to analysis, it is very likely that Israel will reduce the Palestinian population in the Gaza by this way, so as to reoccupy the Gaza Strip and make the Palestinians homeless again, making it difficult for them to return home. King Abdullah II of Jordan said that neither Jordan nor Egypt would accept refugees from Gaza, and hinted that any proposal to let these two countries accept refugees from Gaza was a "common trick".

  Egyptian newspapers commented that the idea of the United States "driving out" Palestinians from their homes this time would be a repeat of "Disaster Day in 1948", when about 700,000 Palestinians fled or were driven out of their homes in the Middle East war, accounting for about half of the total Palestinian population at that time. Egyptian President Seyce said that the presence of Gaza in the Sinai Peninsula may also make the peninsula a base for anti-Israeli militants, which will lead to Israel’s attack on Egypt and expand the scope of the war.

  Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Choucairy said that just as the United States and Europe are sensitive to the influx of refugees, so is Egypt.

  Protests and demonstrations in Washington, new york and Chicago.

  In addition to the opposition and protests in the Arab world, many protests and demonstrations broke out in the United States because Biden’s government supported Israel’s position.

  According to CCTV news reports, since the outbreak of the new round of Palestinian-Israeli conflict, many Americans believe that the United States’ provision of military weapons to Israel is equivalent to giving Israel "absolute freedom" to do "anything" to Palestine.

  On October 18th, local time, many pro-Palestinian people staged protests in the area near the Capitol in Washington, D.C., demanding that the U.S. government promote a ceasefire between Palestine and Israel, and more than 350 people entered the House of Representatives office building near the U.S. Capitol for demonstrations. According to the Global Times, residents of new york, Chicago, Los Angeles and other American cities also held demonstrations on October 21st.

  At the same time, there are more and more voices in Biden’s government that openly oppose Biden’s continued military assistance to Israel. Josh Paul, a the State Council official in charge of the Congressional Liaison Office dealing with foreign arms sales, resigned on October 18th because of the US policy of supplying weapons to Israel.

  "I can’t support a series of major policy decisions, including throwing more weapons at one side of the conflict. I think this is short-sighted, destructive and unfair, and contradicts the values we openly support." Paul wrote in a statement.

  The Senate controlled by the Democratic Party plans to act quickly on Biden’s proposal to provide assistance to Israel and Ukraine, hoping to put pressure on the House of Representatives controlled by the Republican Party. However, there are also differences within the Senate on how to advance. Eight Republicans, led by Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas, said they did not want to combine aid to Ukraine and Israel into the same legislation.

  "These are two independent and unrelated conflicts. It is wrong to use aid support to Israel to try to provide additional aid to Ukraine." The above eight Republicans wrote in a letter.