US-Ukraine ceasefire proposal puts ball in Putin’s court – Asia Times

US-Ukraine ceasefire proposal puts ball in Putin’s court – Asia Times

The United States says Ukraine has agreed to its request for a 30-day peace with Russia following three years of war.

The news followed peace talks in Saudi Arabia, where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky traveled on March 10, and is a amazing turn of events. The game is now in Russia’s courtroom in terms of whether it accepts the ceasefire plan.

Zelensky’s new shouting meet with US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the White House, at a floor level, could not have gone little worse from the Ukrainian party’s view. Both Trump and Vance subjected Zelensky to withering problems before their appointment immediately ended.

The consequences from the appointment immediately seemed even worse than the meet itself. On March 3, Trump paused fabric military aid to Ukraine, and two days later, the US stopped sharing knowledge with Russians. The choice on cleverness has since been reversed following Ukraine’s deal with the peace plan.

When campaigning for president, Trump promised to end the conflict in 24 hours. After he won a second word, Trump has appeared indifferent and even hostile towards Russia at times.

The local upheaval that’s been fuelled by many of his plans, however, has evidently caused him to get a earn in foreign affairs. Enter Ukraine.

However, Trump’s increased emphasis on Ukraine in recent months, including his Oval Office assault on Zelensky, has required the Russian president to adjust. He’s so been making moves to shore up support for Ukraine in a world free of American administration.

Trump’s preoccupation

Trump’s preoccupation with Ukraine stems from several aspects of his world view.

Second, while principles of Trump being a Russian broker may be overblown, he does appear fixated on Russian President Vladimir Putin. This preoccupation likely stems from the fact that Putin, many like Trump, views the world in a transactional way. Putin is someone with whom Trump, who broadcasts himself as a deal-maker, is reach an agreement.

Next, the Russia-Ukraine issue coincides with Trump’s world see that the US provides too much and the rest of the world too little to safe global security. This view is especially the case with Europe, which Trump opinions as “free-loading” via American security offers.

Third, Trump opinions Ukraine as having the potential to help British industry and army, only not in a military fashion. The rare earth minerals that Ukraine possesses have significant economic and military implications, and the market is dominated by the state Trump and many others view as America’s chief rival: China.

Fourth and finally, Trump correctly views the US as having leverage over Ukraine. American military aid has largely allowed Ukraine to fight a protracted war against a much larger enemy. While the degradation of Russia’s military and economy benefits the US, Trump’s focus on short-term objectives largely overlooks this point.

Did Zelensky outplay Trump?

Trump, however, did not account for Zelensky’s strength of character. While Trump is seeking to use Ukraine for his own advantage, Zelensky remains focused on Ukraine’s interests— and not on America first. The emerging personality conflict between both men made the chaotic Oval Office meeting almost inevitable.

Given Trump’s rhetoric towards Zelenskyy in the lead-up to that meeting, it’s curious the Ukrainian leader agreed to the meeting at all. But Zelenskyy himself reportedly pushed for the meeting, and even had French President Emmanuel Macron intervene on his behalf.

American support for Ukraine was disappearing before the tumultuous meeting. There has been no new aid for Ukraine since Trump assumed the presidency. For Ukraine to survive, it needs a new patron.

Zelensky has taken risks during the conflict, not all of which have worked in his or Ukraine’s favor. Those risks, however, have always been calculated. His attempt to bolster support for Ukraine among its non-American allies following the contentious White House meeting might be an example of this type of calculation.

Europe rallies around Ukraine

In the aftermath of the meeting, the international community has rallied around Ukraine. Most important, however, has been the European response.

For all the problems in Trump’s approach, he is correct that the European response to Russia’s invasion has left a lot to be desired from Ukraine’s perspective. While Europe has provided more financial assistance to Ukraine than the US, it has largely occurred in spurts and only after American leadership on the issue.

France and the United Kingdom have emerged as Ukraine’s biggest backers in Europe. This is not new, as both countries have been among Ukraine’s most vocal supporters over the last few years. What Ukraine needs, however, is for that vocal support to turn into action.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced an 800 billion euro program for European Union members to bolster their defence capabilities soon after Zelenskyy met with European leaders in London in early March. In explaining her rationale, von der Leyen stated:

” With this equipment, member states can massively step up their support to Ukraine… This approach of joint procurement will also reduce costs, reduce fragmentation, increase interoperability and strengthen our defence industrial base”.

EU is critical

Though not perfect, the renewed support from the EU and the UK may allow Ukraine to continue fighting as Russia’s declining economy hinders Putin’s war effort.

In the aftermath of the Oval Office showdown with Trump and Vance, Zelensky has done what he can to repair Ukraine’s relationship with the US and satiate Trump’s ego, but tension remains.

From Ukraine’s perspective, it needs a new partner in its war against Russia, and the EU can serve that purpose. The US may be the country pushing for a ceasefire in Ukraine, but it’s Europe that will play the most vital role in Ukraine’s ability to fight the war if it endures.

James Horncastle is assistant professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney professor in international relations, Simon Fraser University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.