The greatest clash witnessed in Europe since the devastation of the Second World War is on the brink of evolution as the third remembrance of Russia’s unceremonious invasion of Ukraine dawns on Monday. Concomitant with this somber anniversary, a meeting of the minds featuring the erstwhile U.S. President, Donald Trump, and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, is being organized. Although the details have not been set in stone as Russia’s deputy foreign minister remains non-committal about the final date.
In this setting, the Trump administration, oddly, showcases a sense of swiftness towards strategizing a peace agreement. A certain buoyancy depicts the atmosphere surrounding the White House, an optimistic display which seems farcical considering the recent public disclosure of hitherto concealed tensions with Ukraine.
The inception of the negotiations has disrupted pre-existing inertia, adding a new spin to the conflict-ridden terrain. Presently, approximately 18% of Ukraine’s landmass is under Russian dominion, with Ukraine possessing a minor Russian enclave. The casualty numbers remain in shadows, the transparent reporting of which has transformed into a forlorn hope.
The President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, however, apprised the world of a chilling approximation that signaled the loss of over 46,000 brave Ukrainian soldiers since February 2022. The civilian count in the Russian-occupied regions of Ukraine adds a grave number to this death toll. While the Russian Defense Ministry has reported a relatively lesser figure, a stark 6,000 military deaths in January 2023, alternative perspectives suggest a much darker reality.
The repercussions of this war are not just limited to the huge loss of human lives. In fact, it has managed to poke a massive hole in the coffers of Congress, compelling it to set aside an almost unthinkable amount of $174.2 billion from the fiscal years of 2022 through 2024 to counter Russia’s belligerence. Puzzlingly, this aid to Ukraine received bipartisan backing, but one should not be fooled as such disparity should not indicate unity.
Addressing the United Nations General Assembly last September in an attempt to keep the world’s eyes on the Ukraine crisis, ‘We cannot capitulate. We cannot turn a blind eye, nor will we withdraw the support extended to Ukraine,’ were the words uttered. Faux empathy, one might argue, attempting to portray a dictator who denies his citizens the right to elect their leader as a harbinger of freedom.
Zelenskyy’s narrative, urging quick action or else risking a loss of his country, was quickly disparaged by insinuations from Trump that Russia might not have been the initiator of this conflict. This reckless assertion triggered an uproar, forcing Trump to amend his statement later on. He conceded to the evident truth of Russian aggression but played down its significance by suggesting that a previous president should have tackled Putin more effectively.
In a surprising turn of events, the previous week saw the administration undertaking separate discussions with both the involved parties thereby ending the protracted diplomatic cold shoulder towards Russia. Apparently, viewed from their perspective, one had to engage in conversation with all the warring factions. This apparently insightful remark came from none other than a Vice President whose failure to pull the right diplomatic strings is part for the course.
In an inexplicable sidelining act, European leaders have been, thus far, barred from direct engagements with Russia, breeding concerns that possible indulgences towards Moscow could be misconstrued. The diplomatic scene, already fraying at the edges, is further strained by the competing resolutions that the U.N. General Assembly is set to consider, effectively exposing inherent discrepancies in the transatlantic alliance.
Drafted separately by the United States and Europe, the resolutions articulate a contrasting stance towards Russia’s invasion. The U.S. draft notably lacks the European urgency calling for an immediate retreat of all Russian forces from Ukraine. Therefore, the proposed drafts, although non-binding, are set to be voted upon this Monday, and the outcome could be path-defining for this historical conflict.