Current Affairs

They term it a summit, a place that has been designated a neutral spot where the elements of an argument can be settled. Maybe these are just exploratory talks between two men delving into the dark side of a war that has cost hundreds and thousand of lives, but the candidness of Trump to welcome the man that probably saved his business empire is worrying to the millions in Ukraine who have been bombed, raped and brutalised by an event that has not been of their making.

The ideas and arguments that will come to the fore are anything but friendly banter between two voices, that banter affects the millions who have had their lives destroyed by a war that has not been of their making, however many times Putin insists that it is. The ideology behind Putin’s assertions must always be countered by his bastardisation of history and the concept that that his ideology mustn’t be a point of contention -bastardises the whole process of an argument that has led to so many deaths.

If it is a considered approach and the arguments of Ukraine come into the conversation, the elements that transfer the argument into of one of diplomacy challenges whether the right people are at the talks. Like an awaiting lackey, Trump will be at the bottom of the stairs as he waits for Putin to swagger down a flight of stairs to the awaiting president. But the image is not one that will be interpreted as a welcome, it is the Putin from Russia coming from high down to the awaiting and grateful president willing to humble himself to a conductor of a nation that is third tier at best.

There is so much wrong with the talks already, the power balance was signified by Lavrov wearing the sweatshirt of the old Soviet Union, igniting an image of a past generation that have become empowered by the reminisces of imperial power. The elements are not there for these talks to find a common ground, the ideology is not one that arguments can be formulated by a president who has threatened sanctions, it is an argument of how Russia is going to project itself, come-what-may.

The signals are there to see already, diplomacy has begun and though the idea of the tough talking property mogul controlling all the elements of the talks, the spectre of an argument determined by a past greatness is being sold by the old Russian diplomat arguing ‘Lets Make Russia Great Again.’ Whether there is any intention of Trump to have empowered the Russian leadership, the elements are there, the ideology is lets do a deal between two old powers that dominated the twentieth century.

More frightening for the Ukrainians is that Lavrov has roundly interpreted these talks as a non starter. Ukraine was not independent when the Soviet Union was a superpower and if to argue that there was an element of the state that was independent, the image of the Ukrainians being murdered by Putin’s re-imagination of Stalin as a great leader, sends a shiver down the spine of the millions of Ukrainians who survived the murders in the  Holdomor famine between 1932-1933, where American companies fed on the gold of Stalin’s exports of wheat and invested heavily in the Soviet Union as millions starved to death in Ukraine.

As much as Putin’s arguments are revanchelist, the argument that elements are going to bring an agreement that is fair and balanced escapes the ideological input of the protagonists in this unbalanced argument. There have been so many mistakes already and so many signifiers that these talks are already unbalanced by the Russians who have hijacked the power dynamics and tough stance that Trump initially intended.

The intentional image of a by gone generation is there, the failure of the US not to realise the pantomime that is being played out by the Russians is a reflection of Steve Witkoff’s failure to understand how much of a mistake he made in interpreting the arguments coming from the leadership of Russia. It has been an intentional dynamic of the Russian’s to challenge the image of diplomacy and the argument that Witkoff had the breadth of range to find an outcome that didn’t compromise the president is already telling. Diplomatically, Russia out manoeuvred the US on its own soil, whether the United States state department realises the significance of the messages coming from the Russian delegation is a question that Trump must ask himself.

There never was an agreement in the making, the shorting of the argument that this was a negotiation was negated by the final word of the day, NIET. Europe does matter, here I have to put my hand up and say that I am a European, whether Brexit happened or not. But the idea that we have a war on the continent is a shuddering reminder of all the wars, rebellions and demands made by those who had existed in Europe and behind the iron curtain.

Then and now, it is not so much that you can have an argument that transcends your political beliefs, but more a question of whether your arguments fit in with the leadership of the state. Navalny and others challenged Putin, they are no longer alive, so the argument of whether there can be a voice that could challenge the ruthlessness of the arguments within the commonwealth of Russian states is very much a realisation that your life will change. Ukrainians are very aware of how Russia conducts itself, before the Maidan Revolution Ukraine was a corrupt archaic kleptocracy. Whether you agree with what has happened since the Maidan and Orange Revolutions, the Ukrainian state has empowered Ukrainians in their fight for freedom, only to be dominated by arguments of legitimacy by the state that has most interfered – Russia.

Putin as well as others know how to ingratiate themselves with Trump, the elements of the argument of his well publicised plan to get peace have been destroyed by an imperialist ideology that does not believe in negotiating. It was good that the meeting broke up, not after the five minutes that Trump promised, but after two and three quarter hours. Trump knew there was not going to be a ceasefire agreed and did the only thing he could, which is close the meeting.

The arguments floated by Trump before he arrived at the air force base in Alaska, were put on the back burner as he realised that his ability to negotiate a deal was never going to materialise. It may have been a shock for Trump to realise he had been out manoeuvred. if Trump is any sort of president, he must hang tough with the Ukrainians. The ideas that the Ukrainian state without the areas it holds, is as much as an idea that Russia has a right to argue that Ukraine should be without the defensive architecture and cannot be a member state of the EU and NATO.

If the US was going to change its position on Ukrainian membership of NATO and ratify all the protocols that enable Ukraine to be fast tracked into the organisation, then Putin’s deal will make more sense. The pivot of the US to China would be strengthened by a state with a large army, technology and the ability to manage its assets in such a way that it has cornered the Russian navy, destroyed Russia’s ability to challenge the Ukrainians in both the air and ground (no Russian bombers entering Ukrainian territory) and has adapted to a new type of warfare (drones) not only technically but also in the manufacturing and management of this defensive architecture.

The plan is very reminiscent of Finland’s exit of its territory after the second world war. Russia, a power then helped by US support fought a war against the axis powers, but the argument of Finnish territory is a firm argument in Finland’s determination to defend itself against any aggressor. If the Baltic nations, Sweden and Finland can get quick membership of NATO and comply with the rule based arguments, then there is an argument that bringing Ukraine into NATO, with its experience of war and how to fight that war makes sense.

It is not so much an expansion of NATO but a shoring up of its military capabilities and first person engagement with a stronger dominant nation that challenges the ideology of first nation states. Whether Putin would agree or not with the ascension of the Ukrainians joining NATO and the EU is very much against the shortcomings found in Trump’s summit with Putin. It is the short sightedness of any state not to include one of the largest standing armies in Europe, which has been fighting a war continually for the past three years and would enable NATO to upgrade its defensive architecture and allow the US and its allies to pivot its attention toward China.

This would enable Ukraine to become an integral member of an international force that is determined by defensive architecture that is technically and physically more capable than it is now. It would guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty and enable the Ukrainian state to negotiate its future within two organisations that would guarantee its future. The idea that it would be a challenge to Russia is nonsense as the war in Europe had been started by Russia, and NATO has not entered a conflict in Europe throughout its history. Russia would be faced by a very capable NATO force, which guaranteed the European defence and the West’s ability to support the arguments that challenge western nations and at the same time would enable a guarantee to the Ukrainians that did not challenge the sovereignty of Russia.

But the implementation of an accord with Russia must mean instant NATO membership in days, not weeks, months or years. The concept of the willing comes back to the argument of the Budapest Memorandum and the failure of the West to live up to the promises of defending Ukraine if it was attacked. The elements of any agreement in the West are determined by democracy and though Trump may not like the concept of democratic argument, the right of the Ukrainians to reject or accept an agreement, is dependent on people in Ukraine agreeing to the cessation of hostilities through a vote, and to get a vote there needs to be a ceasefire.

Zelensky cannot in any shape or form agree to a principle that challenges the sovereignty of his nation, as Trump cannot give away Alaska, however much Russia would like this to happen. For Putin’s argument to have any legs is dependent on a ceasefire so the Ukrainian people can find the space to have a vote on Trump and Putin’s proposal, otherwise there isn’t the plebiscite for their argument to work. The concept that America could or would demand anything else, challenges the very foundations of democratic argument.