The Tempest In The Oval Office And The Logic Of Zelensky’s Peace Plan

by Gennady Shkliarevsky

The eruption that took place during the meeting between President Zelensky, President Trump, and Vice President Vance in the Oval Office is still reverberating through the front pages of the global media.  It has polarized the global community and made the uncertain situation in Ukraine even more uncertain.

The heated exchange was totally unexpected.  Commentators expressed their utter surprise at this sudden turn of events.  Most, if not all, of them see this episode as a fortuitous result of tempers run amuck. This assessment does not ring true.  Accidents at the highest level rarely, if at all, happen.  Such events are highly orchestrated and tightly controlled.  This consideration has led some commentators to conclude that what happened in the Oval Office was a result of the trap set up for President Zelensky.

Susan Rice, former ambassador of the U.S. at the UN, wasted no time to describe the occasion on MSNBC as an ambush of Zelensky by President Trump and Vice President Vance.

However, a close examination indicates there must be a method behind the clash that took place in full view of the public.  To understand this method, one must look beyond the events of that day and at the respective positions of both sides involved in the exchange.

Before this meeting, most people believed that, despite some specific disagreements between the American government and the government of Ukraine, their positions were close enough to prevent a possibility of rupture.  Yet, a keen observer could notice differences that went beyond mere rhetoric and into the substance and logic that defined the two respective approaches.

In his numerous statements before and after the White House meeting, including his interview with Bret Baier, chief political anchor at Fox News, Zelensky has outlined the position of his government on peace in Ukraine.  This position pivots on a profound distrust toward the Russian government and Russia.  Zelensky has reiterated this distrust on numerous occasions.  In this view, Russians are killers who are determined to expand their power far beyond their borders.  Ukraine is an innocent victim of this expansionist drive.  For this reason, Zelensky and his government have insisted and continue to insist that this Russian threat must be confronted by the combined forces of Ukraine and the collective West, including the United States.

The conclusion that Zelensky and his government draw from this view is that any negotiations with Russia must be from the position of strength.  The U.S., NATO, and Ukraine should form a united front and force Russia into retreat.  However, as usual, the devil is in details.

The question is this:  What should the partners do?  Obviously, what they have done so far, providing weapons and money, has not been enough.  The Russian forces in Ukraine continue their relentless advances and are close to establishing their control over the entire Donbass region.  Zelensky clearly expects more that has been done so far by Ukraine’s partners.  In his interview with Baier, Zelensky clearly stated that providing Ukraine with weapons and money is not enough.

Then, what is it that Zelensky wants?  Zelensky’s position begins to flounder at this point.  He has articulated essentially two options.  Option one is that Ukraine joins NATO, which means that NATO’s forces and bases will be present in Ukraine.  This option is unlikely to lead to peace since Putin has repeatedly stated his objection to NATO membership for Ukraine.  One could add that the expansion of NATO into Ukraine was one of the main reasons that led to this war.

Zelensky’s option number two is totally confusing.  He mentions it in the interview with Baier.  He proposes to create “NATO in Ukraine,” whatever that might mean. This is totally unclear.  What does it mean NATO in Ukraine?  How is it different from membership in NATO.  The proposal looks like another one of those improvisations created ad hoc and with little serious consideration.  Improvisations can never result in reliable and stable peace that Zelensky wants for Ukraine.

By contrast, President Trump’s plan is very clear.  He is a deal maker, and he has never disguised his intentions.   President Trump tells in his book The Art of the Deal that making deals is something that he has always loved to do; it is his calling.  What does it mean to make a deal?  A deal is essentially an agreement that benefits all participating sides.  It is a win-win situation where all benefit.  By contrast, Zelensky’s approach can be characterized as a zero-sum game where a win for one side is a loss for the other.

In discussing his plan for peace President Trump has repeatedly stated that in his efforts to bring peace to Ukraine he wants to position the United States in between Ukraine and Russia.  He believes that taking this position is essential for brokering a peace agreement between the two sides.  Zelensky vehemently disagrees.  In his interview with Baier, he insists that the U.S. should be on the Ukrainian side.  Zelensky’s approach clearly indicates that he disregards Russian security concerns.  It contradicts Putin’s insistence that security is indivisible and all security concerns in the region must be taken into consideration it the peace agreement that is to conclude this war.

Trump’s vision for peace is one of a deal—i.e., creating a win-win situation for both sides.  He does not take this position to favor Russia or Ukraine.  He takes this position following his conviction that only mutual advantages can bring a deal.  He acts his conviction and credo, and he can do no less.  This approach is inclusive, and inclusion is one important characteristic of objectivity.  Those who see Trump’s approach as favoring Russia are acting on the belief that “those who are not with us are against us”—a maxim that was invoked by the likes of Lenin and Stalin.  Such approach will be exclusionary, subjective, and arbitrary.  It cannot bring the two sides together.

There is only one conclusion to which the logic of Zelensky’s approach leads:  Russia must be defeated by the joint forces of Ukraine, the United States, and Europe.  It is ethically questionable.  But the main reason why it should be rejected is not ethics.  It simply is completely unrealizable.  It will require American and European boots on the ground in Ukraine.  By insisting on his approach, Zelensky totally disregards the statements that have come repeatedly from the American side—and not just from Trump but also from Biden—that there will be no American soldiers fighting in Ukraine.

For all their posturing, the leading NATO countries are ambivalent about a possibility of deploying their troops, to say the least.  The announcement by England and France that they will send 120 thousand peacekeepers to Ukraine is deceptive.  For one thing, this number is hardly inadequate to stand against the mighty Russian forces.  Also, given the needs of rotation and other logistics, there will be no more than 25 thousand troops on the ground in Ukraine at any given time, which is hardly sufficient to secure peace.  There is no question that given the amount of hostility, particularly from the war party in Ukraine, some renegade armed group will not attempt to provoke the other side.  Such peace will last no longer than the first provocation.

To conclude, the eruption of the storm in the Oval Office was no accident; it was not a fortuitous and unfortunate set of coincidences.  It was a result of the fundamental differences in approaches toward the problem of peace in Ukraine:  an inclusive approach represented by President Trump who tries to bring peace by offering both sides incentives to conclude an agreement and live by it; and the exclusionary approach by President Zelensky who seeks to bring peace through victory by defeating the opponents.  This latter approach is guaranteed to be rejected by the Russian government, in which case the war in Ukraine will involve several major world powers and is likely to escalate into a Third world war—an eventuality that all, perhaps even Ukraine, try to avoid.

~~~

Gennady Shkliarevsky is a Professor Emeritus of History in Bard College, New York

PowerInbox