To Preserve Ukraine, Does President Zelensky Have Permission To Bargain Country’s Soul? Quid Pro Quo Regardless Of Cost? Trading For Weapons, Support? Price For Golan Heights, Taiwan?
To Preserve Ukraine, Does President Zelensky Have Permission To Bargain Country’s Soul?
Has President Zelensky Crossed To Quid Pro Quo Regardless Of Cost? For Sale, For Rent, For Lease, For Mortgage Signs On Ukraine? Trading Morals, Values, Character For Weapons, Support?
The Price For Golan Heights? Palestine? Taiwan? Northern Ireland? Cyprus?
Renderings Of Shylock Or Faust?
The Washington DC-based publication, Axios, reported (link or read article text below) Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, sought [for the third time- once with the People’s Republic of China and twice now with the State of Israel] to trade hoped for delivery to Ukraine of commercial, economic, humanitarian, military, and political support from the State of Israel, this time during a conversation with Benjamin Netanyahu, the newly-returned Prime Minister of the State of Israel, relating to voting in the New York, New York-based United Nations (UN).
Despite repeated requests from the government of Ukraine to the State of Israel to provide one or more of the Iron Dome anti-missile defense systems, which United States taxpayers provided more than US$1 billion to jointly develop with the State of Israel, the government in Tel Aviv has refused- because its position that cooperation with the armed forces of the Russian Federation relating to military operations in the Syrian Arab Republic is more important to the citizens of the State of Israel. Ukraine has a sizable population of the Jewish faith and President Zelensky is of the Jewish faith. Religious and ethnic connectivity have limitations.
The hugging by President Zelensky of the first referenced in the 1530’s philosophy of Quid Pro Quo has become an uncomfortable pattern whereby the government of Ukraine is perceived to be prepared to trade anything for commercial, economic, humanitarian, military, and political assistance despite the costs.
There is a risk of President Zelensky and the identity of Ukraine becoming intertwined with acceptance of the motivations of Shylock to obtain outcomes and the potential multi-generational results from forging Faustian bargains.
On 24 February 2022, the armed forces of the Russian Federation invaded and further invaded the territory of Ukraine in what Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation then as a Special Military Operation [SMO] and which on 22 December 2022 he redefined as a war. The initial invasion by the armed forces of the Russian Federation was in part from the territory of the Republic of Belarus.
President Zelensky is leading a nation, a country, as it seeks to survive territorially, ethnically, religiously, and historically. That leadership requires flexibility, elasticity- and sometimes a lack of flexibility and elasticity. He is forging a pathway that has no 21st Century blueprint.
He must also simultaneously defend the soul of the country. While territory may be held, gained, lost, and retrieved, the soul, character of people as represented by their political leadership needs to remain stable, consistent, intact… survivable. Not for sale. Not for lease. Not traded. Not loaned. Not mortgaged. Not abridged. President Zelensky has notably accused the leadership of the Moscow, Russian Federation-based Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) of shifting from a role as defender of the faith to a role as having sold its soul and become a defender and enabler of a terrorist state.
A For Sale Sign At The United Nations?
December 2022- “The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to give an opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories. Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem - areas the Palestinians want for a state - in a 1967 war. It withdrew from Gaza in 2005, but, along with neighboring Egypt, controls the enclave's borders. The Hague-based ICJ, also known as the World Court, is the top U.N. court dealing with disputes between states. Its rulings are binding, though the ICJ has no power to enforce them. The request for a court opinion on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories was made in a resolution adopted by the General Assembly with 87 votes in favor. Israel, the United States and 24 other members voted against, while 53 abstained. [Ukraine did not vote]. The UNGA asked the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's "occupation, settlement and annexation ... including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures." The UN resolution also asks the ICJ to advise on how those policies and practices "affect the legal status of the occupation" and what legal consequences arise for all countries and the United Nations from this status.”
November 2022- Fifty of the 193 UNGA member nations co-sponsored a resolution on establishing an international mechanism for compensation for damage, loss and injury, as well as a register to document evidence and claims against the Russian Federation. The resolution stated that the Russian Federation “must bear the legal consequences of all its internationally wrongful acts, including making reparation for injury, including any damage, caused by such acts.” Resolution 377A(V) authorizes the UNGA to participate in matters of international peace and security when the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is unable to act due to unanimity among its five permanent members: People’s Republic of China, France, United Kingdom, United States, and Russian Federation, each of whom have a veto. Ninety-four members voted in favor of the resolution, including the State of Israel. Fourteen members voted against the resolution: The Bahamas, Belarus, Central African Republic, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Eritrea, Ethiopia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Mali, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syrian Arab Republic, Zimbabwe. Seventy-three members abstained from voting on the resolution, including India.
November 2022- the UNGA voted 185-2 to condemn United States commercial, economic, and political policies, regulations, and statutes relating to the Republic of Cuba. This was the thirtieth year the resolution was approved. The government of the United States and the government of the State of Israel voted against the resolution. The government of Brazil and the government of Ukraine abstained.
October 2022- With its decision to abstain during a vote by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) which focused upon human rights and genocide within the People’s Republic of China, the government of Ukraine showed that is transactional about issues focusing upon the behavior of one person towards another- or in this instance the behavior of one government towards one group of people. The proposed resolution to which the government of Ukraine abstained was proposed by its largest by far benefactor- the government of the United States whose taxpayers are borrowing what by 24 February 2023- twelve months from 24 February 2022, will be more than US$100 billion to provide funds for Ukraine. That amount will likely increase more than US$50 billion by the end of 2023.
The government of Ukraine complains about the commercial, economic, humanitarian, military, and political relationship between the Russian Federation and People’s Republic of China, and seeking to alter that relationship, at the United Nations supports Beijing… and opposes the government of the United States.
With its decision to abstain during a vote by the UNHRC which focused upon human rights and genocide within the People’s Republic of China, the government of Ukraine showed that it too is transactional about issues focusing upon the behavior of one person towards another- or in this instance the behavior of one government towards one group of people. The proposed resolution to which the government of Ukraine abstained was proposed by its largest by far benefactor- the government of the United States whose taxpayers are borrowing funds to direct to Ukraine.
Was President Zelensky recognizing “facts on the ground”? Believing the government of the People’s Republic of China has not (yet) robustly supported the government of the Russian Federation in mitigating the impact of sanctions imposed upon the government of the Russian Federation and the government of Ukraine needs that position to remain in place? If so, criticising the government of the Republic of Turkiye and government of the Republic of India for their continuing engagement with the government of the Russian Federation remains challenging for the government of Ukraine and easier to justify for the Republic of Turkiye and Republic of India, as well as, for other countries.
Based upon the four recent decisions by the government of Ukraine relating to votes at the UN, how would the government of Ukraine respond in these examples?
Should the Golan Heights, which is the sovereign territory of the Syrian Arab Republic, yet has been occupied by the State of Israel since 1967 and de facto annexed since 1981- and recognized as territory of the State of Israel in 2019 by the Trump-Pence Administration (2017-2021) be returned to the Syrian Arab Republic?
Does the government of Ukraine support the two-state solution with respect to Palestine and the Palestinian people? Oppose settlement construction by the State of Israel on the West Bank, concur with the United States government and twenty-seven country member European Union (EU) which are the two largest sources of commercial, economic, humanitarian, military, and political support for Ukraine?
Does the government of Ukraine support the return of the Guantanamo Naval Base to the government of Cuba which has for decades wanted the lease terminated and the facility closed? In 1901, the United States enshrined the lease effectively in perpetuity for an annual payment of US$4,085.00. Congressional Research Service (CRS): “At the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898, the Spanish colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines transitioned to administration by the United States. Of these four territories, only Cuba quickly became an independent republic. As a condition of relinquishing administration, though, the Cuban government agreed to lease three parcels of land to the United States for use as naval or coaling stations. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was the sole installation established under that agreement. The two subsequent lease agreements signed in 1903 acknowledged Cuban sovereignty, but granted to the United States “complete jurisdiction and control over” the property so long as it remained occupied.”
Does the government of Ukraine support an independent Kurdistan within the territory of Iraq? Support the position of the Republic of Turkiye with respect to both Kurdistan and individuals of Kurdish descent?
Does the government of Ukraine support the government of the Republic of Ireland which seeks the return of Northern Ireland which is a small portion of land (302 miles by 171 miles) on the island of Ireland is governed since 1921 by the government of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). The Republic of Ireland wants control of all its territory.
What is the position of the government of Ukraine towards the Republic of China (Taiwan)? Should the island remain in its current status or be absorbed fully as part of the People’s Republic of China? Will the government of Ukraine support Taiwan in the same manner as the government of the United States? If the People’s Republic of China absorbs by force Taiwan, will the government of Ukraine support that decision or defend decisions by the People’s Republic of China if it provides material support to the government of Ukraine in its war with the government of the Russian Federation?
LINKS To Relevant Analyses
Scoop: Netanyahu asked for Ukraine's support at UN- and Zelensky asked for military aid
Barak Ravid, author of Axios from Tel Aviv (12/31/22)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a phone call late Friday asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to vote against a UN General Assembly resolution that calls on the International Court of Justice to issue a legal opinion on the consequences of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, Ukrainian and Israeli officials told Axios.
The big picture: Ukraine had voted in favor of the resolution during a UN committee vote but did not attend Friday's General Assembly vote "in order to give a chance to the relationship with Netanyahu," the Ukrainian official said.
Catch up quick: The UN General Assembly approved the resolution late Friday, with 87 countries voting in favor, 24 countries voting against and 53 countries abstaining. According to the resolution, the ICJ will draft an advisory opinion on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank — a process that could take between one to two years. The opinion should address the legal consequences of Israel's "occupation, settlement and annexation ... including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem," the resolution reads. The opinion should also address the question of “how the policies and practices of Israel affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status." Ukraine defied Israeli requests to vote against the resolution during the UN committee vote several weeks ago because of Israel's refusal to provide military assistance to Ukraine, Ukrainian officials had said. Israeli foreign ministry officials were furious at the time and summoned the Ukrainian ambassador for a tough conversation.
Behind the scenes: Netanyahu, who was sworn in as prime minister on Thursday, called Zelensky as part of a series of phone calls with leaders of some countries that had previously voted in favor of the resolution. Israel wanted them to change their votes and oppose the resolution or at least abstain, a senior Israeli official told Axios. During the call with Netanyahu, Zelensky said that in exchange for voting against the resolution or abstaining, he wanted to hear how the new Israeli government would change its policy and provide Ukraine with defense systems against Russian attacks using ballistic missiles and Iranian-made drones, a Ukrainian official told Axios. The Ukrainian official said Netanyahu didn’t commit to anything but said he was ready to discuss Zelensky’s requests in the future. According to the Ukrainian official, Zelensky didn’t like the answer and didn’t agree to vote against the resolution or abstain. Instead, he instructed Ukraine’s ambassador to the UN to not attend the vote.
What they're saying: “The two leaders weren’t satisfied and didn’t get what they wanted. Zelensky decided that we will not attend the vote in order to give a chance to the relationship with Netanyahu," the Ukrainian official said. A senior Israeli official said that even though Ukraine didn’t vote in favor of the resolution, Israel was disappointed that instead of abstaining, Kyiv decided not to attend the vote. Netanyahu’s office told Axios: "Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to President Zelensky, and Ukraine which vote before in favor of the anti-Israeli resolution, didn’t attend the vote this time. Other than that we will not comment on diplomatic conversations." Zelensky tweeted on Saturday that in the two leaders' phone call, he "congratulated Netanyahu on taking office as Prime Minister. We discussed bilateral cooperation between our states, including in the security sphere and interaction on international platforms. We also touched on the implementation of the Ukrainian peace formula."
