Translating from a Sept. 3 interview of Oleh Shamshur former Ukrainian ambassador to the USA and France, to the Obozrevatel:
"'Another deadline from the US President to initiate direct negotiations between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Putin has passed, but instead of pressuring the dictator, Trump once again compared Ukraine and Russia "to children who need to fight again." So, in effect, our position is this: the war continues—and then we'll see.'
'At least it looks that way. But I'd like to start with these 'warnings.' First two weeks, then another two weeks, then 'shortened,' 'postponed.'" Frankly, it's reminiscent of China's '101 serious warnings' back when China was weaker and American aircraft regularly violated its airspace. Each time, the Chinese Foreign Ministry would issue a statement—and that was it. The situation is similar, and this seems especially relevant against the backdrop of the SCO summit.
'Secondly, it was hard to imagine anyone really expected anything radical to happen in Putin's behavior in two weeks. Well, maybe some had hoped before Alaska, but afterward, it's unlikely even Trump himself believed it. Russia will agree to "negotiations" only if it's on its own terms. And we've seen those terms: statements from the Russian Defense Ministry clearly demonstrate that Putin is confident and unafraid of sanctions. After Beijing, he'll be even more "inflated," since it's clear that China supports him. And all the countries gathered in the SCO will, to varying degrees, either support Russia or at least avoid creating problems for it.
'Trump's position, with his remarks about children fighting on the playground, and his reaction to the attacks on Kyiv—when Ukrainian victims and Russian oil refineries were equated—appears more than questionable. I'm not a politician, so I can say it bluntly: this is beyond morality.'
'Oleh, what about this phrase—"let them fight some more"? Many people believe Trump is simply giving Putin time to pressure Ukraine; in a month or two, maybe six months, Volodymyr Zelenskyy will become more "negotiable." Is this tactic not out of the question?;
'I would say it's absolutely not out of the question. Even his comparison—strikes on civilian targets in Ukraine and attacks on Russian oil refineries—is a de facto justification for Putin's behavior. So, yes, it's entirely possible that Trump is counting on Ukraine becoming exhausted, Ukrainian society becoming weakened, and then becoming more accommodating, ready to accept "Trump's settlement plan."
'He may be counting on Russia suffering heavy losses, but he doesn't care. The main thing is for the war to end as quickly as possible, and the terms are of no concern to him. Ukraine, for him, is not part of the US's strategic interests. And he will sit quietly by, watching Ukrainian children, soldiers, and civilians die. He will periodically speak of the "horrible losses," but he will always remember the Russians first, and only then the Ukrainians. In other words, the situation looks very grave for us...
'We know he directs his advisors: choose the facts to prove my case. Even if it's utter nonsense. That's his style: transactionalism, deals, plus a strange respect for Putin, which, I'm sure, hasn't disappeared.
'And then there's his reluctance to admit that his proposal isn't working. He'd rather tone down his rhetoric than say outright, "I was wrong." When he thinks an idea might work, he talks about it nonstop. When he sees Putin ignoring him or reacting derisively, his tone softens. But even then, we don't hear any harsh criticism of Putin. He always leaves him some kind of "justification loophole." Remember the story of the strikes on Ukraine. Trump essentially justified these strikes, saying, "Well, yes, I understand why Putin acts this way." That's Trump, and that's the kind of America our leadership has to work with.'
'Putin's multi-day visit to China, his participation in the SCO summit, the parade—all those magical images, arm in arm with Xi, and so on. Do you think this could somehow change Trump's attitude toward Putin?'
'I would say it should have changed. If only we were dealing with a normal leader, someone who draws conclusions from obvious facts. Because what else do you need? The Chinese Foreign Minister said it bluntly: "We cannot allow Russia to be militarily defeated." It couldn't have been clearer. But Trump refuses to admit his own mistakes and defeats. He prefers to continue playing "partnership" with Putin. Therefore, he will hold out until the very end. I don't see a single situation where he would say, "No, I was wrong, we need to act differently." Here, we need to look specifically through the lens of Trump himself. Because this is no longer the foreign policy of a state, but the policy of one man. And this personification, instead of disappearing, is only growing stronger.'
'On September 4, Macron is convening a "coalition of the willing" in Paris. Both the US and Ukrainian presidents have been announced to be there. There's even preliminary talk of a possible meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump. Do you think this could yield any real results for Ukraine?'
'The Europeans are well aware of the level of risk and are trying to do something. On the one hand, they are genuinely trying to act, despite economic difficulties and their military lag behind Russia, which has been preparing for a long time. On the other hand, they want to show that they are taking action. But they are stopping short of taking the most decisive steps that could have a real impact. For example, confiscating Russian assets would be truly effective. But this is merely a sham of action. More is a sham than is actually being done.
'Regarding reality, you can see for yourself. Von der Leyen says one thing, Merz another, Macron something else. And even useful ideas don't reach the level of concrete decisions or implementation details. The Europeans' main goal is to avoid being drawn directly into war. To use Ukraine, as it may sound, to exhaust the Russian army, while they themselves prepare for a future confrontation.
'Although there are absolutely rational and necessary solutions: closing the skies over Ukraine and ensuring freedom of navigation. This would be extremely useful. But this would require entering into a direct confrontation with Russia. The Europeans, it seems, are not ready for this. Therefore, all these discussions are going in circles. The only real result is continued aid to Ukraine. This is very important, but much more of this aid is needed. And immediately. Because while this is being "considered" and "discussed," Russia is advancing on the front lines.
'I'll emphasize again: the main issue now is stopping Putin. Only then can we talk about diplomacy. The same applies to guarantees. Whatever they may be, they are only possible after a ceasefire. And a ceasefire when Putin has the initiative is an illusion...'
No comments:
Post a Comment