The 28-point “peace” plan
(Trump’s) is a big scam for Russia; it equals the biggest Russian capitulation
possible. I argue here that this plan is so disastrous for Russia that is
tantamount to a huge defeat. Russia is deprived of its money, a lot of the
claimed territory, puts everything under the control of the US (arch enemy!) and
gains absolutely nothing.
America emerges as the huge
winner. After fighting for decades cold and hot wars to keep them afar, the Americans
are suddenly on Russia’s doorstep. And Russia opens the door.
Europeans and Ukrainians
initially misread this plan, might just yet begin to understand how stupid Russia
really is in drafting and reading “deals” … See Minsk, whether in doubt.
The European big honchos,
who would like to pull a fast one over the Russians, failed to recognize the wonderful
opportunity this plan presents in this regard…
The Ukrainians also, were
not able to discern the overall benefits for them (the plan makes them the victors
of a lost war) and the multiple bad wording that allows them to procrastinate
forever and backtrack on everything…
Most of the points are ambiguously
formulated and no implementation of them is handy or even possible, but the plan
can be summarized as follows:
- No money returned to
Russia;
- No land recognized to
Russia;
- Legitimizes American
presence in Ukraine;
- Gives US a hefty foot in
the mineral sectors of both countries;
- Makes America a pile of
money from both belligerent sides;
- No significant changes otherwise.
About the nature of the plan
This plan is mandatory, it
requires no further documents or negotiations. This is stated expressly in the 27th
and 28th points:
“27. This agreement will
be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the
Peace Council, headed by President Donald J Trump. Sanctions will be imposed
for violations.
28. Once all parties agree
to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides
retreat to agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.”
Of course, as elsewhere in
the plan, even here inconsistencies do appear. What is the Peace Council? Who
make up this “council”? Who appoints it? What are its rules? What sanctions “will
be imposed for violations”? By whom? Who enforces the “sanctions”? How?
Such ambiguities abound throughout
the document, proving an ample scope for later revisionism. But this ceasefire
and the retreat thing are final.
About its interpretation
We should only refer to the
wording therein. At the moment there is no other extrinsic document in relation
to which this plan should be construed. Nor it’s sure such an element would
ever occur. We should not read it through the lens of our personal hopes,
either. Just the written text.
In every agreement, the
principal problem it’s the order of executing the obligations. What is the succession
of the obligations, who does what first, and second, and third etc.?
Any contract puts such a problem,
that’s why we have exceptio non adimpleti contractus as a valid defense
to oppose to someone who asks our obligation to be executed. We can say: you
first. That’s why stipulating such an order is paramount.
We don’t have such a step-by-step
program here. We don’t know the order, the sequence of executing the
obligations. Furthermore, there are provisions depending entirely on third
parties. How could such a plan ever be implemented? What if, exempli gratia,
NATO doesn’t include a special provision in its charter regarding Ukraine (prohibiting
its accession). What if that amendment is voted against? The ceasefire was already
implemented and the possession of the lands had long ago switched hands.
One example
To see just how stupid this
document is, I will start with one clear example of incompetence. The point
number 10 states that:
“10. The US guarantee:
- The US will receive
compensation for the guarantee;
- If Ukraine invades
Russia, it will lose the guarantee;
- If Russia invades Ukraine,
in addition to a decisive
coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated,
recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked;
- If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St Petersburg
without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.”
By this plan, Ukraine
losses American guarantee (what if the US refuses to give up the guarantee?)
only if they launch a missile at Moscow or St Petersburg (and even then, if the
launching is “without cause”?!). Per a contrario, everything else is permitted?!
Under this plan, Ukraine
can take missile pot-shots at any Russian city but Moscow and St Petersburg, be
them with or without cause, and at Moscow and St Petersburg when the
missile launching against these two targets are “with cause”, and the US security
guarantee to Ukraine will still be valid.Ridiculous.
What is the “decisive
coordinated military response” should Russia invade Ukraine? From whom and
coordinated with whom? Europe?
What “guarantee” means
here? What does the “guarantor” do before, during and after the “guarantee” is
activated? Of course, this is the pretext for moving in US troops and ammunition
(not NATO, but American).
Think about the US as “guarantor”,
them being who started the conflict and fought it all the way through a proxy…
As for the tangible assets,
the plunder, the spoils of war, land and lucre, money, let’s see who
gets what:
Russian money, 300 billion USD, gone for good
The thoroughly incompetent governor
of the Russian central bank managed to get caught by the beginning of the war
with 300 billion dollars Russian assets in enemy banks. What happened to her
after such an epic failure? Nothing, she is still in the same position, further
undermining the Russian economy each passing day.
Regarding this money, the
plan states that:
“14. Frozen funds will
be used as follows:
- $100bn (£76bn) in frozen
Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in
Ukraine;
- The US will receive 50%
of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100bn (£76bn) to increase
the amount of investment available for Ukraine's reconstruction. Frozen
European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will
be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement
joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening
relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to
return to conflict.”
So, the funds will be used,
but will not be returned! Never. Russia doesn’t get back any of its frozen
money. Of that, 100 billion dollars goes to the US to administer and reap part
of the benefits (50% of the “profits”), for reconstruction of Ukraine (who, probably,
gets the other half of the profits). Europe is to add the same amount, implied
from the same (Russian) money. Europeans only put forth one third of the Russian
money, 100 billion, again under American supervision. The remaining 100 billion
dollars again goes to be administered by the US as a mutual fund for projects
involving both Russia and the US (presumably the Alaskan undersea tunnel, among
others).
Land, not obtained by Russia
Russia at the moment holds
territories in Kharkov (significant), Dnepropetrovsk, Sumy (to a lesser extent),
after winning them on the battlefield. All these are to be retroceded to
Ukraine, for good and de jure (in law).
Russia gets the remaining of
the Donetsk and the tiny bit of Lugansk still in Ukraine’s hands. But only de
facto and as a demilitarized zone. The territories exchanged are
approximately equal quantitatively.
Also, Russia consents to
broke their own Constitution by giving up the territories not yet conquered,
but Russian according to the Russian law, in Zaporizhia and Kherson.
Moreover, Ukraine’s sovereignty
is recognized, and guaranteed, whereas all Russian-held territories in former
Ukraine (including Crimea!) get the status of occupied territories (de facto)
and not territories held by virtue of law (de jure).
You have right here in this
“peace” plan, the seeds of the future conflict, after Ukraine, Europe and
America get a rest and set their agenda straight.
Military assets/bases
Point number 8 states that:
“NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.”
NATO-related things were
always promised multiple times before and each time the promise was broken. It’s
no different this time, just a piece of paper signed, nothing.
Apparently, this corresponds
to Russia’s aspirations. But just at the first cursory glance. In reality, the
plan does not exclude all member state’s troops. The plan precludes only NATO
troops in Ukraine. NATO is an international organization. Any reference to NATO
understands the international organization, which is distinct from its
components, and does not refer to each and every member. So, American troops
are not prohibited; the US can station any troops or armament.
The member states are
distinct from the organization and are subjects of International Law in their
own individuality (as is NATO itself a – distinct - subject of International Law).
The US has a lot of bases in the world without any connection with NATO. So
has, exempli gratia, France.
Ukraine will be flooded
with personnel and material from a lot of countries acting on their own, especially
the US, the minute Russia withdraws from the territories it undertook to return.
There will be no NATO in Ukraine, but there will be the US (guarantor!), France,
the UK, Poland, Turkey and who not.
Furthermore, the NATO Treaty
does not prohibit individual states to get involved in offensive wars, aiding a
side to a conflict, providing military and economic aid etc. That’s why some
NATO states organized themselves – in this conflict - in small groupings to
lead an aggressive policy against Russia (for example, the coalition of the willing).
The plan also specifies
that there will be no further NATO enlargement, again, many times promised
before… If you trust these guys.
At the same time, NATO can’t
station troops, but it can circulate them through Ukraine, at will. The movement
of troops is not forbidden and is, thus, permitted.
As for Ukraine itself, it
gets to keep a huge army, arguably more than it has at the current time. At the
same time, Ukraine has no ban on re-armament. Ukraine is not prohibited to
re-arm and gets to keep a huge army, that means a certain future war, to get
the de facto foreign held territories under Ukrainian de jure
control.
And 600,000 troops is more
than Ukraine has at the moment. But how can you verify the size of the
Ukrainian army? Can you tell if they are 600,000 or 800,000 or a million? No
practical way of telling...
More absurd provisions in
the military domain. Point 9 states: “European fighter jets will be stationed
in Poland.” Really? Poland is demilitarized at this moment? European fighter
jets are prohibited up until now? What is this? Probably some provision to bulk
up the accord to mask the huge Russian renunciations; smoke and mirrors. Another
example:
“17. The United States and
Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and
control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.”
What has this to do with
Ukraine? Why do you need Ukraine’s signature on it? Why Russia and the US don’t
agree these between themselves?
It’s sad to realize just
how stupid are the people in charge of planetary events that could eventually lead
(a not so distant eventuality) to life extinction… We all have skin in the game.
The whole skin, that is.
