No choice but to agree

International diplomacy over Russia’s February 2022 unjustified aggression against Ukraine is in turmoil because of the radically different approach adopted by President Donald Trump as compared to that of his predecessor Joe Biden. The essence of Trump’s approach is to end the war even if that means overlooking the basic fact that one of the P5 countries entrusted with the maintenance of peace and security was itself guilty of violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a neighbouring state. In pursuit of his Russian policy Trump spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin and thereafter a US delegation which included Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Putin’s foreign policy advisor Yuri Ushakov met in Riyadh on February 18. No one from Ukraine was present.

This meant that Trump was signaling to Ukraine, Europe as well as the world that the war will end with a deal struck between Putin and him and everyone else would have no choice but to agree. Naturally Ukraine was upset but beyond expressing its strong resentment it could really do nothing. Nor, for that matter could the Europeans. After the Riyadh meeting Rubio said that the US and Russia would set up high level teams to proceed with peace in Ukraine and that the Riyadh meeting “marked the beginning of a conversation”.

Contrary to Trump’s policy, Biden and the EU countries, with the exception of Hungary were aghast at the Russian aggression. Hence, they went all out to support Ukraine financially and with weapons to defend itself. At the same time, they took care to ensure that the weapons supplied by them to Ukraine were incapable of attacking the Russian mainland in any major way. Biden also tightened economic sanctions against Russia. He obviously hoped that by doing so he would be able to bring Putin under pressure compelling him to change track. The Russian economy sustained damage but with Chinese assistance and also with countries like India continuing to buy Russian energy Putin was able to weather the storm.

Three years after the beginning of the war the situation is that Ukraine despite all the assistance it has received is unable to push Russia out of its territories. Its own occupation of some Russian territory in the Kursk Oblast is really of little consequence to Russia. Russia controls around twenty percent of Ukrainian territory. It has annexed Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia and made them formally part of Russian territory. No country has recognized these annexations but the fact is that no country has the potential to change the facts created on the ground. It is also noteworthy that Putin has repeatedly said that Russia would go to any extent to defend itself and its core interests. That was an indication that it would be willing to use the ultimate weapons of war which are nuclear. This was denounced by the Biden administration and the EU but it was an indication of how strongly Putin felt about the issue.

On the third anniversary of the Russian aggression, it was natural for the UN to take note of the Ukraine war. While in 2022, 2023 and last year the UNGA under US prodding strongly criticized Russia this year the scene was different. The US was unwilling to be critical of Russia while the EU countries went all out to criticise the Russian aggression. They gained the support of 93 countries though 65, including India, abstained. The US went so far as to vote against the Ukraine and EU sponsored resolution. In this it went along with Russia which did the same.

In the UNSC the situation was starker than before. Obviously, the UK and France did not wish to veto a resolution introduced by the Trump administration. Hence, what they obviously agreed to was that a simple three short paragraph resolution could be moved by the US from which they would abstain. The resolution read “The Security Council, Mourning the tragic loss of life throughout the Russian Federation-Ukraine conflict, Reiterating, that the principal purpose of the United Nations, as expressed in the Charter of the United Nations, is to maintain international peace and security and to peacefully settle disputes, Implores, a swift end to the conflict and further urges a lasting peace between Ukraine and the Russian Federation”.

Ten countries supported this resolution while five abstained. The word “Implores” in the operational part of the resolution stands out. It shows that the UNSC which is usually so strong in the case of weaker countries has been reduced to pleading with Russia to end the aggression. This only shows the truth of international relations—the strong will do what they wish and the weak must accept what they must. In this case it is Ukraine which must do so.

The UK and French, in their statements, emphasised that a distinction between an aggressor and the victim must not be lost sight of. These fine words would be cold comfort to Ukraine which would be losing out in any deal which it reaches with Russia. There is no question of Russia ceding any major chunk of Ukrainian territory which it currently occupies. Hence, the best that Ukraine can hope for is that the international community would not give de jure recognition to Russia’s annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia.

Finally, despite the present grave differences between the US and EU over Russia, the linkages between the two are so great that the damage is unlikely to be permanent. The US was always the stronger of the two in this relationship but the difference in the power of the two was treated politely by both sides till now. But Trump has no reluctance in showing who is in the driver’s seat in this relationship! He has done so brutally.