Pearls and Irritations

The leading expert on Russia says Trump’s bold claim to end the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours is highly unlikely to materialise, and only a just peace can lead to lasting peace.

Below is a brief analysis by Feng Yujun, a leading Chinese expert on Russia, published in 海外看世界 Global China on November 12.

Global China primarily utilises platforms such as its WeChat blog, website, and other social media channels to publish Chinese-language articles, primarily on international relations, contributed by scholars of Chinese heritage. Its Editorial Team is led by Dr. John Quansheng Zhao of American University as Chief Editor and Dr. Taiyi Sun of Christopher Newport University as Executive Editor.

Feng, whose work has been featured here and in The East is Read, a sister newsletter, kindly agrees to the translation and publication.

Donald Trump’s return to the White House has drawn particular attention regarding its potential impact on the two ongoing regional wars. Concerning the conflict between Israel and Iran and its proxies, Trump’s policy stance is clear: to fully support Israel, suppress Iran’s geopolitical ambitions in the Middle East, and minimise the security threats Iran poses to Israel.

As for the Russia-Ukraine war, the Trump team currently has two proposed plans. The first, presented by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on July 26, includes measures such as unleashing America’s energy potential to drive down international oil prices, imposing real sanctions on Russia by removing exemptions for its banks in oil and gas trade, expanding the U.S. defence industry, requiring NATO members to allocate at least 3% of their GDP to defence, establishing a $500 billion “Lend-Lease” plan for Ukraine to provide military aid in the form of loans rather than grants, and lifting all restrictions on Ukraine’s use of weapons.

The second plan, proposed by Trump’s advisory team on November 7, includes delaying Ukraine’s NATO membership by 20 years, continuing U.S. arms supplies to Ukraine, creating a demilitarised zone along the 1,200-kilometre front line, placing 20% of Ukraine’s territory under Russian control to freeze the war, and assigning Europe the peacekeeping responsibilities for the demilitarised zone.

It remains unclear which plan a new Trump administration might choose or whether it would introduce an entirely new approach. However, one thing seems certain: his bold claim to “end the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours” is highly unlikely to materialise.

Recently, Russia has placed its hopes on Trump’s idea of “freezing the war” and is intensifying its offensive on the battlefield in eastern Ukraine, especially in the Donetsk region. Over the past month, the Russian military has captured more than 600 square kilometres of territory in eastern Ukraine at a hefty cost. However, since August 6, when Ukrainian forces entered Russian territory, the Ukrainian military still controls more than 800 square kilometres of land in Russia’s Kursk region, inflicting heavy casualties on the Russian troops attempting to retake the area. After nearly 1,000 days of bloody and brutal war and having reached a balance of strength with the enemy, it would be impossible for Ukraine to “cede land for peace.” Its policy remains “peace through strength,” to restore the internationally recognised border between Russia and Ukraine that existed after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Moreover, Ukraine will not repeat the mistakes of the “Budapest Memorandum” or the “Minsk Agreements,” which were trampled on, reducing Ukraine to a pawn in great power politics.

Despite Trump’s victory in the presidential election and the ensuing “Trump storm,” Russia and Ukraine, with their entirely opposing political stances, cannot be expected to end the war merely due to his pressure. Looking ahead, there are several possible scenarios for the Russia-Ukraine battlefield:

1. Scenario One: With support from North Korea and Iran, Russia gains an overwhelming advantage over Ukraine and achieves its so-called strategic objectives. However, this is more of a hypothesis. Both North Korea and Iran have limited national power. They are facing severe challenges themselves, making it unlikely they can provide the level of support Russia would need to defeat Ukraine. Furthermore, North Korea and Iran’s deep involvement could provoke regional military powers like South Korea and Israel to join in militarily assisting Ukraine.
2. Scenario Two: Both sides, under pressure from the United States, agree to a temporary ceasefire, thus “freezing the war.” However, there is a significant issue here: Russia’s desire for land is insatiable. After a brief respite, it may return to the battlefield. After capturing the four eastern Ukrainian regions, Russia may set its sights on occupying the entire east bank of the Dnieper River, and if successful in Ukraine, it may seek to restore the Russian Empire and integrate the so-called “Russian World.” It can be concluded that the consequence of “freezing the war” would likely be a war that continually escalates. The Korean War ceasefire model does not apply to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
3. Scenario Three: The United States reduces or halts its aid to Ukraine, and Europe is forced to step up its support. In this case, the Russia-Ukraine battlefield could become a prolonged stalemate and war of attrition. Ultimately, Russia, having already suffered significant losses in personnel and equipment, with weakened national power and domestic political turmoil, would find its resilience outmatched by Ukraine, which has gained broad international support.
4. Scenario Four: The United States continues its full support for Ukraine, fulfilling its security commitments to Ukraine and Europe, helping Ukraine achieve victory in the war. If Trump returns to the White House under his MAGA slogan, his stance on the Russia-Ukraine war will become the most crucial test of whether his promises can be realised. The United States will face a choice: whether to return to isolationism and allow the rules-based international order to collapse or to take on global responsibilities and once again demonstrate America’s so-called “international leadership.” We shall see.

However, it must be remembered that only a just peace can lead to lasting peace. Any form of appeasement, under any guise or excuse, will only bring greater disaster to the world and backlash to those who practice it.

Republished from Pekingology , November 28, 2024

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT