Zelensky And NATO Summit- Should He Travel To Madrid; Meeting With Erdogan; Biden Messaging Issues; Putin’s “Sovereignty” Comment; Recriminations & Accountability; Johnson’s “Eurovision Theory”
Ukraine President Zelensky Will Participate In G7 And NATO Summits. But How?
Video Link For G7
Consequences Of Traveling To Madrid
Meeting With Turkiye President Erdogan
If President Zelensky Does Not Travel To Madrid, United States President Biden Should Travel To Ukraine (Lviv) Or Another Location To Meet President Zelensky
President Biden Continues To Blame Squarely Russian Federation President Putin For All That Negatively Impacts United States Consumers. Visiting Ukraine Would Permit Him To Show That
Boris Johnson And The Eurovision Theory
Messaging Inconsistency… Or Mess
Prime Minister Johnson Of United Kingdom Declares Situation In Ukraine “… Is Going To Be Fine” By May 2023 And Important To Avoid “Ukraine fatigue.” However, he says “we need to steel ourselves for a long war.” Prime Minister Johnson also offered: “It would be a catastrophe if Putin won. He’d love nothing more than to say, ‘Let’s freeze this conflict, let’s have a cease-fire.’”
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg Said War In Ukraine “could take years.”
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky Said “We will definitely hold out! We will definitely win!” And “We will not give the south to anyone, and all that is ours we will take back.”
Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin Confirms That Ukraine Is “Sovereign.”
On 23 February 2022, Ukraine Was Its Own Problem. On 24 February 2022, Political Leadership In The Largest Economies Believed Ukraine Was Their Problem Too. For How Long Will This Problem Last?
Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, contributed this past week revealing statements about the existence of Ukraine, which in recent previous comments he has dismissed as a non-nation-state-country absent a unique identity and historically and forever a part of Greater Russia. President Putin shared that he had “nothing against” Ukraine becoming a member of the twenty-seven country European Union (EU), continuing that the decision to become a member of the EU was “their sovereign decision to join economic unions or not.” He added that as a member of the EU, Ukraine would become a “semi-colony” of EU-member countries and others, without mentioning the United States.
On 21 November 2013, Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for President Putin, said about Ukraine that “a strictly internal and sovereign decision of the country, and we think we have no right to comment on it” about Ukraine membership in the EU and the Russian Federation was prepared for negotiations (trade and economic) with Ukraine and EU. However, saying something is does not necessarily make it so.
Why were the statements important? Because they re-confirmed that Ukraine is sovereign and as such has the capacity to make decisions which may be anathema to the Russian Federation, but permitted nonetheless. When lawsuits are working their way through the legal process in various countries, that the Russian Federation acknowledged the sovereignty of Ukraine will be an important distinction for use by plaintiffs- territory not belonging to defendants was illegally invaded, and defendants knew it, so the defendants are responsible for reparations and damages, civil and criminal.
A publicly-stated reason for the Russian Federation to invade Ukraine was the desire by Ukraine to become a member of NATO. The Russian Federation was more concerned with the impact upon commercial, economic, and political infrastructures in the Russian Federation that an EU-member Ukraine would have upon influencing decision-making in the Kremlin. A prosperous, protected, rule-based, transparent, collectively-engaging EU-member Ukraine would be an unwelcomed contaminant infecting the political structures and population of the Russian Federation.
The Meetings
The G7 Summit (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States) is scheduled for 26 June 2022 to 28 June 2022 in Schloss Elmau, Krun, Bavarian Alps, Germany.
The NATO Summit is scheduled for 29 June 2022 to 30 June 2022 in Madrid, Spain. The thirty NATO members: United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Albania, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Romania, Germany, Slovakia, Greece, Slovenia, Hungary, Spain, Turkey, Latvia, and North Macedonia.
What Biden Needs
Joseph Biden, 46th President of the United States, needs for the war in Ukraine to end, and to end soon. And he, along with the government of Ukraine, NATO, and the EU needs to construct a convincing narrative, thus far absent, defining what is “victory” and what is “winning” and what is “losing.”
For most observers outside of Ukraine, “victory” by the government of Ukraine would be returning to its pre-23 February 2022 borders with the Russian Federation. For most of the citizens of Ukraine, “victory” is defined by returning to its pre-2014 borders with the Russian Federation. With neither outcome likely within the next year or years, what then is the timeline for declaring “victory”?
Is “winning” to be defined by Ukraine, the United States, NATO, and the EU that the Russian Federation will control approximately 20% of the square footage of Ukraine as it does today rather than the approximately 7% controlled by the Russian Federation on 23 February 2022?
So, the Russian Federation has more than doubled the square footage under its control in Ukraine. Is now not controlling more square footage than that defined as a loss for the Russian Federation? That the Russian Federation did not control the capital city of Kyiv, Ukraine, and its surrounding areas is defined as a loss overall for the Russian Federation even though it has obtained control of other areas? This would be an example of mendacity.
Blame Is Shared, Not Proprietary
President Biden’s continuing insistence that everything unpleasant to consumers in the United States- increased energy prices (gasoline, electric, natural gas), increased food prices, increased durable product prices (vehicles, appliances), increased interest rates (loans, mortgages, credit cards) and increased inflation (on everything) throughout all sectors of the economy is not attributable to him, but is solely attributable to decisions by Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, has neither been effective nor will be sustainable.
Note: An image comes to mind- the actor Kevin Bacon portraying a college freshman enrollee in the Reserve Officers’ Training Program (ROTC) in the 1978 comedy Animal House who while confronting a mob screams “All is well” as they trample him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro
President Biden’s position is weakened further by admissions from Janet Yellen, United States Secretary of the Treasury, that mistakes were made by her in 2021 (and by connectivity the United States Federal Reserve) relating to decisions impacting the United States economy. Factually, increased prices and increased inflation were impacting the United States economy prior to 24 February 2022.
President Biden does not want the war to conclude with the accepted position that what Ukraine resembled in terms of square footage on 23 February 2022 looks eerily similar at the cessation of active military engagement between the armed forces of the Russian Federation and armed forces of Ukraine. This optic is relevant relating to the year and months leading to the United States presidential election on 5 November 2024 and inevitable comparisons to what Afghanistan resembled when invaded by the United States in 2001 and what the country resembled in 2021 when the United States departed. The question then and now will be: was the cost worth the result?
This optic will be further amplified as politically consequential after the Biden-Harris Administration (2021- ) has obtained authorization of the United States Congress for what could for a twelve-month period near US$120 billion or more in United States taxpayer borrowing to support commercial, economic, military, and political activities relating to Ukraine. During the last twenty years, the United States government has operated with annual deficits approaching and exceeding US$1 trillion- and more than US$2.5 trillion in 2020 and 2021; and has a national debt of approximately US$30.5 trillion.
Boris Johnson- Eurovision Will Set Ukraine Free
Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) reflected President Biden’s need during a second visit to Kyiv, Ukraine, on 17 June 2022. He shared: “The Russians are grinding forward inch by inch, and it is vital for us to show what we know to be true, which is that Ukraine can win and will win.” When Ukraine fatigue is setting in, it is very important to show that we are with them for the long haul and we are giving them the strategic resilience that they need.”
Dmytro Kuleba, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, shared: “The West cannot afford any sanctions fatigue, regardless of the broader economic costs.”
Prime Minister Johnson may have helped or harmed President Biden by declaring that the armed conflict in Ukraine would be in a mode defined as “fine” by May 2023.
In discussing the location of the May 2023 Eurovision Song Contest organized annually by Grand-Sacconnex, Switzerland-based European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Prime Minister Johnson shared “I believe that Kyiv or any other safe Ukrainian city would be a fantastic place to have it. It is a year away. It is going to be fine by the time the Eurovision Song Contest comes round, and I hope the Ukrainians get it.” A group from Ukraine won the competition in May 2022 and the winner’s home country generally hosts the following year’s competition. However, EBU shared that “with deep regret” due to a twelve-month planning requirement and security concerns in Ukraine the competition cannot be held in Ukraine- and that the United Kingdom would be the host in May 2023.
So, just what does “fine” in Ukraine in May 2023 resemble?
Recriminations
Inescapable will be the recriminations. Debating if the sanctions implemented as a rheostat from 24 February 2022 onward towards the Russian Federation and countries assisting/cooperating with the Russian Federation had been implemented-in-full prior to 24 February 2022, might the armed forces of the Russian Federation had not attacked Ukraine or attacked in a different, less impactful manner- specifically a manner in which the armed forces of Ukraine could have and would have dislodged the armed forces of the Russian Federation from any newly-sought territory.
President Biden has confirmed that the United States government conveyed forcefully absent of ambiguity to the government of Ukraine that the armed forces of the Russian Federation were going to attack Ukraine, but the government of Ukraine did not believe the intelligence and analysis conveyed and the government of Ukraine did not want to create further concern by the population of the country and damage further the economy by forecasting an invasion.
If a result, not necessarily the result, the final result of the invasion of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation is the square footage of Ukraine will be less than on 24 February 2022 which was less than the square footage of Ukraine on 22 August 2014 (invasion of Donbas Region) and on 27 February 2014 (invasion of Crimea Peninsula), the government of Ukraine will blame- and quite publicly so, other countries for not proactively preventing the armed forces of the Russian Federation from invading Ukraine.
The government of Ukraine will again share its belief that had other countries responded forcefully with globally impactful sanctions on the Russian Federation on or before 1 August 2008 when the armed forces of the Russian Federation invaded South Ossetia and Abkhazia (Russian Federation did not relinquish military base required by a 2007 treaty) in the Republic of Georgia, the impact of those globally impactful sanctions- having remained in place for fourteen years, might have prevented what was unleashed in 2014 and then 2022.
Zelensky At NATO Summit
For Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine, the G7 and NATO summits are critical moments for him to establish the baselines with members the commercial, economic, military, and political support trajectories for the next six months.
Yet, the decision to travel outside of Ukraine is fraught with challenges keeping legions of outcome modeling analysts occupied.
If President Zelensky travels, the message is military activity is contained, inactive to the extent that he can risk an inability to return to Ukraine. Might that suggest there is less urgency, less pressure on NATO to continue to provide support to the armed forces of Ukraine? Might traveling be a signal that the current conflict boundaries are quickly morphing into the status quo?
If President Zelensky travels, the message may also be that Ukraine is desperate for support- so desperate that the president of the country will risk travel out of the country (and the message that may send to the population) and will risk an inability (and personal safety) of returning to Kyiv. And, if President Zelensky does travel to Madrid, will the NATO members say directly to him, in person, not through a video link, that they are not prepared to go “all in” to equip the armed forces of Ukraine with the assets they believe necessary, not what NATO believes is necessary- for which there has remained distance since 2014, to push the armed forces of the Russian Federation back to their 23 February 2022 positions or, ideally, to their pre-2014 positions?
If President Zelensky travels to Madrid, Spain, does he were a t-shirt and cargo pants or wear a suit? There are distinct messages with his choice of costume: One projects that he remains a wartime commander-in-chief and head of state regardless of his location- and that message would be visibly conveyed to the heads of government and heads of state of the thirty members of NATO- and to viewers throughout the world. The other projects that he is confident enough to wear comfortable two costumes- and dress accordingly for the audience. Lastly, does he shave?
Erdogan Meeting
If he participates in person at the NATO summit, and he should, his prime focus needs to be Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President of the Republic of Turkiye.
President Zelensky should request a one-on-one meeting (with one translator/notetaker each) with President Erdogan and then an expanded gathering. The agenda items:
Obtain support for Norway and Sweden to become members of NATO;
Agreement for Turkish Naval Forces to escort agricultural commodity transport vessels from ports in Ukraine through the Sea of Azov and Black Sea to international markets;
Re-establishment of Istanbul-Kyiv-Istanbul operations by Turkish Airlines using the same rationale as Turkish Airlines continuing to operate its Istanbul-Moscow-Istanbul routing- providing connectivity to the outside world;
Seeking from the government of Turkiye cooperation with not providing “safe-heaven” for assets of Russian Federation-based companies and individuals of Russian descent who are subject to sanctions implemented by the United States and other countries and by the EU.
President Erdogan, who is seeking another term with an election scheduled for 23 June 2023, need also remain balanced in articulating the requirements of Turkiye as they relate to Norway and Sweden- while recognizing that Norway and Sweden will become members of NATO even if Turkiye objects because the majority of NATO members want both countries in the alliance. Currently, the alliance operates by consensus, as does the EU, meaning that all members must agree rather than majority rules. Turkiye risks provoking a change to how the alliance operates which would not be in the interest of the government in Ankara. Turkiye will suggest that it may depart the alliance should Norway and Sweden be admitted despite its objections, with the implication that Turkiye would re-align itself with the Russian Federation, China, and non-aligned movement countries, including India.
What will not be in the interest of Turkiye is a government perceived by NATO and the EU as more focused upon demonstrating intransigence, bullying, rigidity, zero-sum (win-lose) positions rather than balanced compromise when necessary to address an immediate objective. Unhelpful for the commercial, economic, and political infrastructures within Turkiye would be governments, companies, and financial institutions needing to be convinced to engage with, invest in, provide services to Turkiye rather than naturally being attractive to the country of 86.1 million- including millions of refugees from Syria and other countries, the hosting of which has been an immense financial burden for the taxpayers of Turkiye.
Putin’s Next Move
Pushing out armed forces that are present is far more challenging than preventing armed forces from being present where they are not wanted.
Vladimir Putin may during the next months signal increasingly a willingness to cease efforts to expand territorial gains in exchange for cessation of globally impactful sanctions implemented against the Russian Federation and the return of approximately US$340 billion in Central Bank of the Russian Federation assets frozen by governments.
He may also unilaterally cease to expand his square footage. Simply stop moving forward and not move backward. Then begin to construct and reconstruct portions of territory in Ukraine which is occupied. If the armed forces of the Russian Federation cease advancing and the government of the Russian Federation does not seek any relief from sanctions imposed upon it, what does Ukraine and those governments supporting Ukraine do in response?
Accountability
All countries who have connectivity to the parties in the war will blame each other for what happened and for whatever unsatisfactory outcome is achieved.
Another certainty will be animosity by governments toward one another due to the political and financial minefield as to who will pay to reconstruct portions of Ukraine rather than a global assurance as to who must pay 100% of costs to reconstruct portions of Ukraine. That would be the Russian Federation.
Any elected official or appointed official who supports taxpayers in their respective countries spending funds to pay for the damage inflicted upon portions of Ukraine by the armed forces of the Russian Federation should be recalled, retired, defeated, or terminated.
