Essentially, the plan now reportedly presented by the United States for Ukraine does not stray from what was suspected from the outset to be the philosophy of the new American administration for the region: forcing the Ukrainians to cede part of their territory, which would fall under Russian administration, whether through a model of effective sovereignty recognition or a "lease" formula. Both possibilities had already been discussed.
It is now the latter formula that is being talked about. Under it, Russia would obtain a "de facto" occupation, internally able to claim the new republics as its own under its Constitution. Kiev’s Ukraine (let us call it that) would remain the holder of "de jure" sovereignty, which gives no indication it would ever recover in the future. The world, beginning with the U.S., would continue to recognize Ukraine’s 1991 borders under international law but would accept Russian occupation of that part of the territory. It would be a "make-believe" scenario intended to suspend the conflict.
From the perspective of Ukraine’s future limited sovereignty, amputated of a significant part of its territory, the plan envisions non-entry into NATO (something Washington never wanted), an inscription of this in the Ukrainian constitution (perhaps in the Austrian model, recalling 1945), and quantitative and qualitative limitations on Kiev’s future armed forces, including a ban on long-range missiles.
These neutralizing restrictions would mark the end of Kiev Ukraine’s dream of becoming a powerful military country. This dream, in fact, was not only Ukrainian: Europe to its West hoped Ukraine would function as a frontline of its own defense.
The truth is that both Europe and Ukraine were, in the past, led to nurture this illusion by the U.S. itself, which suggested Ukraine’s (and Georgia’s) vocation as future NATO members. The fact that the agreement could include a provision that NATO would not expand further east would be a huge Russian victory. Georgia would be left out of NATO. And what about Moldova? Moscow would not get the desired "reset" in the plan but would secure a freeze on future expansions. It would also see a resumption of arms control treaties (though much important detail is still missing).
One unclear aspect of this plan is the question of security guarantees for Ukraine. There will be no Western troops on its territory and apparently no "no-fly zone." How troop placements will be monitored on both sides of the future "buffer zone" remains uncertain. Will there be a kind of Article 5 offered by the U.S., with operational responsibility resting with Europeans?
Measures such as Russia’s return to the G8 or the lifting of sanctions that do not depend on Washington can only be implemented after a change in the attitude of U.S. allies, which remains far from secured. Similarly, it is at least strange that the agreement interferes with Ukraine’s relationship with the European Union. And what about ICC measures against Putin? Do they fall with a kind of "amnesty"?
The plan contains a business dimension, very interesting to the U.S., as part of the complex package Washington wants to put an end to the conflict. Whether in Arctic exploration or how Russia can mobilize significant frozen foreign funds, the advantages for the U.S. are well present.
It remains to be seen what Russia will "give" the U.S. economically in Donbass, adding to concessions Ukraine agreed to months ago. Ukraine would thus be, in a way, under American tutelage. The fact that elections are foreseen there within 100 days, with the return of the Russian language and prohibition of "Nazi ideology," could signify the political end of Zelensky is near. Recent corruption scandals surely did not help him.
The most revealing point in the plan, echoing the Gaza case, is: "This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J. Trump." One might say: "The Empire strikes back."
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário