Ukraine's Dream of Peace, America's Business Strategy

Everyone, I need to talk to you about how this “dream” of peace in Ukraine and America’s “business tactics” are playing off each other. Zelenskyy originally wanted to take a “middle path,” only to discover that such a path doesn’t exist at all. The U.S. “peace plan” for Ukraine has been revised time and again, pared down from 28 points to 19. The nine points that were removed were clearly intended to “save face” for Ukraine—they were the provisions regarding territory and military size. Now Zelenskyy has come to realize that the U.S. has no genuine intention of allowing him to retain territorial integrity or a sufficiently strong military. These nine points represent the fundamental points of contention between Russia and Ukraine, and it remains to be seen whether Russia will even agree to the remaining 19. If Russia deems the new peace plan to contradict the spirit of the Anchorage summit between Putin and Trump, the entire process will have to start over from scratch. Russia continues its expansion, while Trump is once again forcing Ukraine to jump into the “fire.” Courtney, a former U.S. diplomat to Kazakhstan and Georgia, wrote in articles for the RAND Corporation and The Hill that Ukrainians are resilient, more confident, and determined to continue fighting—they do not want a ceasefire. The Ukrainian leadership believes Russia lacks the military strength to secure victory, while Ukraine is at the forefront of a military revolution; the eastern front can be held without expensive weapons. Hearing this, it seems as though Ukraine has already gained the upper hand and will likely capture Moscow in a few years. But take a closer look at Georgia, where she is stationed. Like Ukraine, Georgia is a target for NATO’s eastward expansion. Many scholars of international affairs believe that, at its core, the Russia-Ukraine conflict boils down to the U.S. desire to establish military bases deep within Russia’s heartland. Russia has drawn a red line, but the U.S., in its wilfulness, pays no heed. In fact, the most reckless actors are the U.S. foreign policy establishment and the so-called “deep state” within the intelligence community. For them, might makes right, and they hold normal, equal diplomacy in utter contempt. They treat normal diplomacy as a tool for “regime change” and “covert subversion.” In 2010, Ukrainian President Yanukovych sought to maintain neutrality between Russia and the West, but in 2014, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Nuland made a phone call designating Ukraine’s next government. This call was later posted online by Russia, yet the U.S. continued to deny it. This kind of “open secret subversion” has in fact become a standard modus operandi for the United States; during the Cold War alone, it carried out 64 covert operations and 6 overt ones. From 1946 to 2000, the United States intervened in 81 foreign elections. Over the long term, the U.S. has fomented conflicts and fostered security dependence around the globe, giving rise to a massive interest group known as the “military-industrial complex.” Today’s military-industrial complex has, in fact, “grown old,” and new interest groups are not interested in endless wars—which is why a president like Trump goes around saying, “I am not belligerent by nature; I only seek to resolve conflicts.” However, there remains a massive opposition force within the country that prevents Trump from softening his stance and blocks the radical changes he seeks to bring about. For example, the original 28-point peace plan—though some claim it was a “wish list” for Russia—did not actually harm U.S. interests; it merely opposed NATO’s eastward expansion. Consequently, it faced widespread criticism in U.S. political circles, with the establishment offering the most vehement opposition. Under pressure from Ukraine and Europe, the plan has now been revised to 19 points. It no longer restricts NATO’s eastward expansion and thus fails to address the root cause of Russia’s military action; consequently, it has quickly gained widespread support from the establishment. Next week, Witkiewicz, the special envoy for Russia-Ukraine affairs, will lead a delegation to Moscow to discuss the matter with Putin; I am pessimistic about this. One part of the agreement that Trump cares deeply about is the “money-grabbing clause”—investing $10 billion in frozen Russian assets into Ukraine’s reconstruction, with the U.S. taking half of the dividends. This money is a figment of the imagination; in reality, only about $5 billion in Russian assets are held by the Americans, while the bulk is held by the G7, the EU, and the European Clearing Bank. Trump is simply too eager to extort money. But even more frightening are those who chant “Glory to Ukraine.” Both types of people are bad, but the latter are worse.