Can Trump broker peace in Ukraine? History may hold the answers

[Celerity]

As Trump enters the White House with ambitious plans to end the Ukraine war, historical precedents—from Munich to Dayton—highlight the challenges of finding a sustainable peace.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/can-trump-broker-peace-in-ukraine-history-may-hold-the-answers



snip

What options does Trump have to end the war in Ukraine? History offers some precedents.

Munich Agreement 2.0

In 1938, the leaders of Germany, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom met in Munich to cede a large part of Czechoslovakia to Germany in an attempt to appease Hitler. The Czechoslovak representatives were not even invited. By the time the British Prime Minister landed back in London, Hitler had annexed the entire Czech region and created a vassal state in Slovakia. The 1938 Czechoslovak model is difficult to replicate in Ukraine. Ukraine will need time to agree to cease the fighting, and Trump will require his European allies to endorse any plan. The current European political establishment will not accept an agreement on Ukraine without Ukraine’s consent.

Permanent Ceasefire in a Frozen Division

In 1974, Turkey launched an operation to secure its Turkish-Muslim minority in Cyprus, following a military coup on the island instigated by Athens. What began as an intervention to protect the Turkish minority turned into a 50-year-long division of Cyprus into two parts. To this day, a substantial demilitarised zone still separates the two sides. In a similar scenario, Ukraine would have to accept the de facto annexation of the Russian-occupied eastern regions, while constructing a demilitarised zone stretching thousands of miles from the Sea of Azov to the Belarusian border—a kind of modern Maginot Line. Ukraine would need to maintain a massive standing army to guard against any prospective Russian attack. The Turkish intervention was never intended to occupy the entirety of Cyprus, but rather to secure the Turkish-majority areas. Putin, however, has repeatedly made it clear that he wants either the entire Ukraine to be part of Russia or for it to become a vassal state.

Bosnia-Herzegovina of 1878 or Dayton

In 1878, the Great Powers gathered in Berlin to determine the fate of Bosnia. They decided Bosnia should be governed from Vienna, while nominally remaining under Ottoman rule. In the case of Ukraine, this would mean that the eastern part of Ukraine could be technically recognised as part of the country, but Russia would control its day-to-day affairs. Regardless of the US President’s power, major decisions must be approved by Congress. Even Trump’s allies, such as Senator Lindsey Graham, would likely oppose any deal that appears to reward Russia.

This brings us to a fourth scenario: a Dayton-style agreement. This would involve de facto recognition of the four eastern oblasts as part of Ukraine, but with a special status of autonomy. They would have their own parliament, police, and administration, but be deprived of the right to conduct foreign, economic, or financial policy. Although the Dayton Agreement was no easy process, the American lead diplomat Richard Holbrooke often threatened the parties with bombing raids to secure their consent—a tactic the US would not be able to employ against Russia. Under a Dayton-style agreement, the four eastern oblasts, treated as a single entity, would likely remain dependent on the Kremlin, risking further dysfunction within Ukraine. Ultimately, Putin has shown that he cannot be trusted to abide by any signed agreement. The question remains: even if Ukraine agrees to a ceasefire or relinquishes territory, who will guarantee it? Collective security is the best option, but it requires enforcers. Who would be willing to enforce it?

snip

[Lovie777]

1. No...

[Blue_Tires]

2. Bullshit headline

Trump doesn't want "peace", he just wants to intervene on his buddy Vlad's behalf and cut him a sweetheart deal...

As it has been proven on countless occasions, Donnie has neither the patience, diplomatic nuance nor intellectual capacity to negotiate any kind of lasting agreement. Anytime he can't just bully people, it's ALWAYS the "path of least resistance" for him so he can declare victory as soon as possible... Case in point: The "deal" he cut for the Afghanistan withdrawal which nobody remembers because the American public are a bunch of amnesic dumbasses...