A Deal That Was Doomed And Zelensky Is the Reason

15
257

by Gennady Shkliarevsky

 

Tempers are still flying in the aftermath of the storm that broke up last Friday.  Articles and online messages are flooding the media on both sides of the ocean.  The message that most of them convey is that President Zelensky and President Trump must find the way to mend their fences and move forward.

The eruption in the Oval Office last week sent European leaders scrambling for solutions.

The rush to formulate their own peace plan for Ukraine offers very limited time for careful consideration and planning that are necessary to come up with a workable solution.  The result is ad hoc improvisations to prevent further damage.

The emerging plan discussed by the European leaders is vague and contradictory.

It relies on contingencies and conjectures, rather than on solid predictions.  Many details are still missing, and major lacunas are yet to be filled.  What has emerged so far does not augur well for the plan’s prospects.  Uncertainties do not constitute a good foundation for a durable peace.

The plan calls for a truce between Russia and Ukraine as the first step toward concluding peace.   This call is a non-starter.  The Russian government has repeatedly indicated that it would not entertain a temporary solution that would simply provide a breathing spell for the exhausted Ukrainian armed forces.  The planners offer no indication of how they will overcome Russia’s resistance.

The plan also calls for a deployment of NATO peacekeepers—the proverbial boots on the ground.  However, it does not specify how many troops will be involved and for how long, which makes one wonder whether this force will be sufficient to perform its difficult mission.   To provide security guarantees for Ukraine, the European leaders propose to create a Coalition of the Willing.  This reliance on voluntarism does not inspire much confidence in the success of the enterprise.

The plan ultimately pivots on bringing the U.S. on board.  The planners clearly spell out this condition.  Prime Minister Starmer has stated: “We cannot accept a weak deal . . . Instead, any deal must be backed by strength.”  And “strength” in this context means American backing and commitment, including possible involvement of American troops—a possibility that the American government, both under Biden and Trump, has already rejected on numerous occasions.  The plan appears to be little more than a ruse to involve American armed forces—if not by hook, then by crook—into the war in Ukraine.

Obviously, the plan is still very much a work in progress that may never be completed.  Some creases can be ironed out, but there are fundamental differences that cannot be resolved easily, if at all.  Zelensky, for example, denies that there are substantive differences between the government of Ukraine and the U.S. government.  However, when it comes to proof, he offers little more than platitudes and sloganeering.

There is obviously an underlying problem that has caused the Oval Office debacle.  Solving a problem requires understanding its source.  One would think in the wake of the disaster, Ukrainian leaders and their supporters would try to identify and analyze this source.  However, there is no indication that they have undertaken such efforts.  Most commentators agree that the problem is fortuitous and can be fixed.  In the interview with Fox News after his visit to the White House, Zelensky stressed that American people “helped save our people… we wanted very much to have all these strong relations, and where it counted, we will have it.”  However, despite his expressions of gratitude to the American side, Zelenskyy refused to accept the responsibility for the blow-up.  As Fox reported, he “was not sure we did anything bad.”

The agreement on rare earth minerals was in the center of the storm that broke out in the Oval Office.  Supporters of Ukraine recommend that the two sides should go back and sign this agreement.  (Just for the record, Democratic lawmakers advised Zelensky not to sign the agreement.)  Zelensky has expressed his willingness to complete the deal.  He has even stressed the urgency of this move after the American government announced the suspension of shipments of lethal weapons to Ukraine.  There are no indications that anyone who now advocates speedy reconciliation, including Zelensky, really understands the problem that caused the rift.

The subject of the agreement came up in the interview that Zelensky gave to Fox News after his departure from the White House.  In this interview, Zelensky explained that he viewed the agreement as the first step toward security guarantees that were essential for a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine.  Bret Baier immediately pointed out to Zelensky that there was nothing in the agreement about security guarantees.  Zelensky conceded the point but kept on insisting that his view logically followed from the agreement and that was how the agreement must be understood.

This brief, almost passing exchange during the interview has not attracted attention that it really deserves.  Yet, this exchange points to a significant and even fundamental difference.  It shows that Zelensky brings into the agreement something that is not explicitly in the text.  He brings in his own interpretation, and a very imaginative one at that, and presents it as a fact.  There is nothing in the agreement that warrants such interpretation.  Yet Zelensky has nevertheless brought it in his discussions with President Trump without any prior consultations.  In a way, he ambushed President Trump, and he did so intentionally and against explicit advice not to do so. According to the NYTimes, Senator Lindsay Graham, a long-time supporter of Ukraine, told Zelensky before the meeting:  “Don’t take the bait . . . don’t get into arguments about security agreements.”

Zelensky ignored this advice.  He came to the meeting with one expressed desire to sway President Trump to his own view.  Instead of focusing on the details of the agreement, Zelensky brought pictures of Ukrainian POW who were supposedly abused by Russians.  He wanted President Trump to be on his side.  President Trump has repeatedly stated that in any future negotiations he wants to position himself in the middle, between Russia and Ukraine.  Zelensky’s move to sway President Trump to his side, to change his position, was impolite, offensive, and very disrespectful.

The first thing that comes to mind when listening to Zelensky is that he was trying to pull a fast one on President Trump.  However, there is another possible interpretation.  Zelensky

Seems to be completely lacking a human sense of respect for the position of another person, in this case President Trump.  He also seems to be totally oblivious to the difference between what he wants and believes, on one hand, and reality, on the other.  In the episode that took place in the Oval Office, Zelensky refused to accept the view of another person as legitimate and worthy of serious consideration.  Such wishful and egocentric thinking is a characteristic feature for Zelensky and his war party.  Such wishful thinking and egocentrism do not bode well for future dealings with Zelensky.  They make him a very unreliable partner.  There are important questions that need to be answered:   Does Zelensky have knowledge and experience?  Can he act in good faith?  Unfortunately, Zelensky offers no answers.

The stakes involved are extremely high.  They are about lives of hundreds of thousands of people.  They are about the stable world order.  Finally, last but not least, they are about the reputation of President Trump who wants this peace to be an important part of his legacy.

President Truman once perceptively remarked: “The business of America is business.”  Business is what made America.  Business is about deals; and there is no part of a deal more important than contracts and agreements.

Contracts are integral to American life.  Ordinary Americans sign many contracts during their lifetime.  Few have patience to go through a long laundry list of points included in contracts, particularly those in small print.  That is why Americans have an army of lawyers who are paid to do this job, and particularly read the fine print.  Lawyers know well that if they do not do their job properly, the contract they fail will be the last one they will ever read.

There is no reason why Zelensky should know all this.  After all, agreements are for professionals.  But there is absolutely no reason why Zelensky should not have someone in his entourage who understands the importance of contracts for Americans and for their President.  Contracts are binding.  They sanctify good faith of the contracting parties.  They show respect for those who sign contracts.  This last point is particularly important for Americans who respect each other’s autonomy—the right to have one’s own view.  The fact that there is no one in Zelensky’s camp who can understand and respect Americans and their President is deeply disturbing.

There is something even more alarming that has transpired since the incident in the Oval Office.  There are enough signs that Zelensky has not learned anything from his experience last Friday.  After several days of hesitations Zelensky has finally apologized–sort of.  According to Newsmax report, he has acknowledged that the meeting in Washington “did not go the way it was supposed to be.” “It is regrettable,” he added, “that it happened this way . . .  It is time to make things right . . . We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive.”  has acknowledged that the meeting in Washington “did not go the way it was supposed to be.”  Yet, these regrets do not amount to apology and the acceptance of responsibility.

His statements and comments that he has made since his meeting with President Trump show that he really has not seriously thought about the incident and has learned nothing.  His “conciliatory” statement, for example, includes the following conclusion:  “Regarding the agreement on minerals and security, Ukraine is ready to sign it in any time and in any convenient format statement concluded . . . We see this agreement as a step toward greater security and solid security guarantees, and I truly hope it will work effectively” (emphasis added).

The statement expresses hope that President Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will restore the paused minerals deal that was pulled off the table after Friday’s meeting.  He gives no indication that he understands the problem, that it is precisely the way he interprets the agreement that has cause the rift.  As one reads through Zelensky’s ambiguous statement and online comments, one wonders whether he is sending this message intentionally or is simply stupid—and one is not sure which is worse.

In his interview with Fox, Zelensky said: “I just want to be honest, and I just want our partners to understand the situation correctly, and I want to understand everything correctly. That’s about us not to lose our friendship.”  He does not seem to realize that by putting his own interpretation into the agreement he is anything but honest and open.  His statements and comment after the meeting are just as ambivalent and ambiguous as what he said at the meeting.  This inability to learn does not inspire confidence.

In all fairness, however, President Trump did use the word “security” with respect to the agreement.  However, he used it in the context and in the sense of security in exchange for American assistance in rebuilding Ukraine, not in the sense of committing of American forces in guaranteeing security for Ukraine.  No doubt, security guarantees are important, and they must be discussed.  But this discussion is separate from the agreement on rare earth minerals.  Security guarantees are not in the text of the agreement and are not relevant to it.  The agreement is essentially a business deal between the United States of America and Ukraine.

Indeed, interpretations are a legitimate part in diplomatic discussions.  But they have no place in diplomatic documents.  Agreements should be clear and unambiguous.  The two sides may not see eye-to-eye.  They may differ in interpretations.  However, there should be no leeway in interpreting the agreement once it is agreed upon and signed.  Agreement is a contract; and contract should be concluded in good faith to inspire respect and trust of all sides.  To consider interpretations of an agreement, particularly as gratuitous as what Mr. Zelensky proffers, to be part of the agreement is a prescription for troubles ahead.

Anyone who deals with the United States must understand these rules.  Russians understand these rules.  They have dealt successful for decades with the American government and have concluded numerous agreements that held.  President Nixon, who was a lawyer and a sharp diplomat, knew this about Russians.  He had no illusions about Russia.  He knew very well that Russia is an opponent and a dangerous one.  He warned on numerous occasions that Russians would try very hard to find a loophole and use it to their advantage.  But once they agreed to a deal, they would keep their end of the bargain and would follow an agreement to a letter.  Nixon successfully led American foreign policy to detent with Russia that gave the world almost a decade of peace.  All SALT agreements held until their term expired in 1985.

All sides that are in one way or another involved in the Ukrainian situation and the entire world regret the debacle in the Oval Office.  No one regrets it more than President Trump.  He has been sincerely moved by the number of casualties and the amount of destruction caused by this war.  He wants this peace to be part of his legacy.  However, he also understands that agreements and compliance with agreements are important.  They can translate desires for peace into reality.  Zelensky and European leaders must understand this about President Trump:  if they want to deal with this President and be successful, they must act in good faith.

~~~

Gennady Shkliarevsky is Professor Emeritus of history at Bard College.


You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:

PowerInbox
0 0 votes
Article Rating
15 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Echo1
Echo1
2 months ago

And , come on … The US keeping its word on agreements/deals? When has the US ever kept its word on Anything?

What ever happened to not one Inch East! Russia has tolerated so much that I am of the thinking PUTIN was PUT IN. Really!

You people ( most of America) must be suffering from End of Days Delusions; because you`re under the influence of some Strong Spirits. BEWARE! This is Biblical and not MEAN SPIRITED. IF I were being mean I would not say a Word.

Greg
Greg
2 months ago
Reply to  Echo1

Stupidity is incapable of recognizing Stupid.

ECHO1
ECHO1
2 months ago
Reply to  Echo1

Now .. I got all of your Attention! Better Learn, Time is Short. America keeping its Word … That`s a Knee Slapper! Tell it to the Indians!

Greg
Greg
2 months ago
Reply to  ECHO1

Stupidity is incapable of recognizing Stupid.

Echo1
Echo1
2 months ago

The Insults were from “Trump and Vance” in that Staged Gang up! Quite Childish. Trump is sitting there menacing like a Gorilla Eyeing Vance ( the Lacky) for a Sucker Punch on Z! School Yard Bullies!

You do not embarrass foreign leaders. LEADERSHIP 101. You do not put them on television to play games. Truthfully, Youre lucky, Z ,is an Idiot and most likely a CIA employee. You paid for it, America. You gave, Z, Millions!

So ... I do not understand how you all think, Z, owes this Apology? I am baffled! You Funded Ukraines Color Revolutions and Pushed Revolution. You pushed hostilities against, Russia, and Installed Zelinski. If I were Z, I would have TOLD TRUMP: I am Figthing Your War because you, and your nation, are too Chicken S---t to Fight it Yourselves! TRUTH. Like it or Not.

You pushed it, you bought it, and now youre fearing danger to yourselves and want to cut and run. It will not be simple. And, you want an Apology! Thats a Knee Slapper!

Greg
Greg
2 months ago
Reply to  Echo1

Stupidity is incapable of recognizing Stupid.

The Prisoner
The Prisoner
2 months ago
Reply to  Greg

Let’s cut the misfit off, it wants attention.

Echo1
Echo1
2 months ago
Reply to  The Prisoner

Go Ahead. I do not like your antisocial comments. Now, we got , Greg, as Broken Record. Brilliant. Nevertheless, what I wrote is GOSPEL and remains unable to even be challenged. I win.

Greg
Greg
2 months ago
Reply to  Echo1

Stupidity is incapable of recognizing Stupid.

The Prisoner
The Prisoner
2 months ago
Reply to  Echo1

Childish noisemaker, who everyone in your life avoids: I will not ignore your posts permanently.

Echo1
Echo1
2 months ago
Reply to  The Prisoner

Thank You.

Greg
Greg
2 months ago
Reply to  Echo1

Stupidity is incapable of recognizing Stupid.

Greg
Greg
2 months ago

Sounds like Zelensky changed his mind, reflected in his message to Macron. It was also said Zelensky no longer wants the mineral deal. I only heard of it.

How’s that lack of US intelligence working out for you Zelensky. It was also reported that Starlink isn’t working on the front lines.

Heed Trump’s words. See how that works out for you.

Greg
Greg
2 months ago

Zelensky is probably panicked. Since US removed any and all intelligence assets to Ukraine the UAF has no idea where the Russians are and will attack.

Greg
Greg
2 months ago

One thing Zelensky and Ukraine will have to understand. They will never get back the Donbass and Crimea. There’s too much hatred for Russian speaking Ukrainians, ever since Maidan. He ruined that when campaigning as a peace candidate and received a vast majority of votes from the East to win decisively, only to turn his back on those people. Granted it may not be what he wanted, but when confronting an Azov commander he sternly told him, “I am the President”, to no avail. He surrounded himself with those bastards and now he’s in a pickle and can’t extricate himself.

I am quite suspect about those “POW’s”. I’m not sure if he brought up Bucha, but someone did. That was shortly after video surfaced of Ukrainians knee-capping Russian POW’s. They were executing any Russian collaborators, including anyone who were getting humanitarian aid. Those bodies in Bucha were seen with Russian MRE boxes beside them. Does anyone in their right mind think Russian soldiers would give civilians food and then shoot them.

There were investigations some time back accusing Zelensky and the military of war crimes. Witnesses reported such in Mariupol, home of the Azov’s. One case had interviews of many people who had buried loved ones in their own yards. Some described one instance where a woman went out and walking somewhere and was shot. Her very young son ran after her and was also shot. The Azov’s would not allow anyone to leave their homes, even for humanitarian aid. Those who tried to evacuate the city were met with resistance. In one dash-cam video Azov checkpoints were stopping vehicles and shooting the occupants. The driver saw this and rapidly away from the area.

Hardly anyone is aware of all the circumstances that led Russia to finally enter the conflict. It was a civil war and nothing more. There were some 13 thousand casualties before Russia entered. The Donbass begged Putin to come in but he didn’t want to get involved. It wasn’t until Ukrainian forces built fortifications along the grey zone and began heavy shelling indiscriminately. It was either the OSCE or OECD that confirmed over 2000 attacks in a week. After that week Russian entered Ukraine.