We can say everything about Donald Trump, but not that he is not committing, in his own way, in an attempt to resolve the various conflicts that still bloody the world.
On the other hand, they must be put to his credit, with direct interventions or through effective Moral Suasionthe following peace agreements reached only in the first eight months of his second presidential mandate:
– peace agreement reached between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda;
– peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia;
– Take the immediate fire between India and Pakistan.
Another point in favor of The Donald was then to get out of the shallows in which the Biden administration had placed the United States in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. That is, we have gone from a real American impossibility (which Europe still serves today), to be able to baste any semblance of the path of peace after the glass insults (“crazy son of P …, butcher, killer, etc. etc.) that the predecessor of the current president had publicly addressed to the address of the man strong of the Kremlin, leaving the diplomatic activism in the hands of the Turkey, To a new phase in which, after having exceeded the impasse caused by the predecessor, Trump has put the United States back to the center of international diplomacy in an attempt, certainly not easy, to arrive at a ceased first, and then lasting peace.
What scenarios will therefore come out of the summit? International diplomacy generally provides for different solutions ranging from winning everyone, winning one and losing the other, to losing everyone.
The first solution, the one hoped for and which is defined Win Winin reality it would have a lot of the flavor of an almost Russian victory, which however has on its side the incontrovertible fact of having conquered several Ukrainian provinces and therefore of being militarily ahead. It could therefore be assumed that Russia, strong of its victories at the front, however expensive in terms of soldiers who died in battle, can obtain what has been asked for from the beginning of the conflict, namely the international recognition of Crimea as a Russian territory and no longer as a temporarily occupied Ukrainian territory, the annexation limited to only Donbass with the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, the commitment that Ukraine does not come into NATO, End of economic sanctions and the fully returning to the list of civil nations, causing the accusations of war crimes and aggression crimes to fall to Putin. For its part, Ukraine should accept the idea of loss of territories, currently rejected without reservations, while retaining a part of those currently under Russian control, including the largest nuclear power plant in Europe and among the most productive in the world of Zaporozhzia; It would receive a river of money for reconstruction and, above all, it could be admitted to be part of the European Union, thus reaching a strategically less “threatening” solution if seen from the Russian side compared to an enlargement of NATO. Finally, President Trump would come out once again, more and more intent on chasing the coveted Nobel Peace Prize.
The second and third diplomatic solution, i.e. in the case of Win Lose or lose lose, So the non -acceptance for the parties in question to renounce something (Russia the territories conquered with weapons and hundreds of thousands of deaths, Ukrainian the loss of part of its national territory) could see a winner and a loser, but more likely we would see only losers, because it would mean the continuation of the war without continuity, until someone would fall to the carpet definitively, due to a military victory, or for the fault of the sanctions, economic the other, which sooner or later will reveal their nefarious effects on the Russian war economy.
Sergio De Santis, Colonel (Ris.) Of the Guardia di Finanza
TheVermilion.com is also on WhatsApp. Simply click here to register for the channel and always be updated (free).