As Europe releases proposals for a ceasefire in Ukraine, Trump is falling into the trap of Munich 1938

カートのアイテムが多すぎます

ご購入は五十タイトルがカートに入っている場合のみです。

カートに追加できませんでした。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。

しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。

ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました

ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました

As Europe releases proposals for a ceasefire in Ukraine, Trump is falling into the trap of Munich 1938

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る

このコンテンツについて

After a second consecutive night of deadly Russian air attacks – against the capital Kyiv on April 23 and the eastern Ukrainian city of Pavlohrad on April 24 – a ceasefire in Ukraine seems as unrealistic as ever.With Russian commitment to a deal clearly lacking, the situation is not helped by US president Donald Trump. He can’t quite seem to decide who he will ultimately blame if his efforts to agree a ceasefire fall apart.Before the strikes on Kyiv, Trump blamed Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky for holding up a deal by refusing to recognise Crimea as Russian. The following day, he chided Vladimir Putin for the attacks, calling them “not necessary, and very bad timing” and imploring Putin to stop.The main hurdle on the path to a ceasefire is what a final peace agreement might look like and what concessions Kyiv – and its European allies – will accept. Ukraine’s and Europe’s position on this is unequivocal: no recognition of the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea or of permanent Russian control of currently occupied territories in Donbas. This position is also backed by opinion polls in Ukraine, which indicate only limited support for some temporary concessions to Russia. Along similar lines, the mayor of Kyiv, Vitali Klitschko, also suggested that temporarily giving up territory “can be a solution”.The deal that Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff apparently negotiated over three rounds of talks in Russia was roundly rejected by Ukraine and Britain, France, and Germany, who lead the “coalition of the willing” of countries pledging support for Ukraine.This prompted Witkoff and US secretary of state Marco Rubio to pull out of follow-up talks in London on April 24. The talks went ahead regardless, involving mostly lower-ranking officials. They ended with a fairly vacuous statement about a commitment to continuing “close coordination and … further talks soon”.And even this now appears as quite a stretch. Coinciding with Witkoff’s fourth trip to see Putin on April 25, European and Ukrainian counterproposals were released that reject most of the terms offered by Trump or at least defer their negotiation until after a ceasefire is in place.The impasse is unsurprising. Washington’s proposal included a US commitment to recognise Crimea as Russian, a promise that Ukraine would not join Nato and an acceptance of Moscow’s control of the territories in eastern Ukraine that it currently illegally occupies. It also suggested lifting all sanctions against Russia.Ukraine would give up large parts of territory and receive no security guarantees, while Russia is rewarded with reintegration into the global economy.It is the territorial concessions asked of Kyiv which are especially problematic. Quite apart from the fact that they are in fundamental breach of basic principles of international law – the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states – they are unlikely to provide solid foundations for a durable peace.Much like the idea of Trump’s Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, to divide Ukraine like Berlin after the second world war, it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what, and who, drives this war.Kellogg later clarified that he was not suggesting a partition of Ukraine, but his proposal would have exactly the same effect as Trump’s most recent offer.Both proposals accept the permanent loss to Ukraine of territory that Russia currently controls. Where they differ is that Kellogg wants to introduce a European-led reassurance force west of the river Dnipro, while leaving the defence of remaining Ukrainian-controlled territory to Kyiv’s armed forces.If accepted by Russia – unlikely as this is, given Russia’s repeated and unequivocal rejection of European peacekeeping troops in Ukraine – it would provide at best a minimal security guarantee and only for a part of Ukrainian territory.What it would almost inevitably mean, however, is a repeat of the permanent ceasefire violations along the disengagement zone in eastern Ukraine where Russian and Ukrainian forces would continue to face each other.This is what happened after the ill-fated Minsk accords of 2014 and 2015, which were meant to settle the conflict after Russia’s invasion of Donbas in 2014. A further Russian invasion could be just around the corner once the Kremlin felt that it had sufficiently recovered from the current war.The lack of a credible deterrent is one key difference between the situation in Ukraine as envisaged by Washington and other historical and contemporary parallels, including Korea and Cyprus.Korea was partitioned in 1945 and has been protected by a large US military presence since the Korean war in 1953. After the Turkish invasion of 1974, Cyprus was divided between Greek and Turkish Cypriots along a partition line secured by an armed UN peacekeeping mission.Trump has ruled out any US troop commitment as part of securing a ceasefire in Ukraine. And the idea of a UN force in Ukraine, ...