An upcoming meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin draws some parallels with the infamous 1938 Munich conference where Czechoslovakia’s fate was decided behind the back of the country’s leadership.
That’s according to Edward Verona, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank, who spoke in an exclusive comment to Ukrinform.
“As it stands, this upcoming meeting smacks of appeasement ala the 1938 Munich conference, in which the fate of Czechoslovakia was decided without its leaders even being in the room,” Verona said, expressing his personal opinion on the matter.
He believes the meeting is unlikely to result in any lasting deal that would ensure Ukraine’s security. At the same time, it “doesn’t slake Putin’s insatiable appetite for territorial expansion”.
Moreover, Trump agreeing to meet with Putin makes the United States “appear weak and vacillating”.
“President Trump sets deadlines and issues ultimatums, then retracts or suspends them. He lends legitimacy to Putin by meeting with him, on U.S. soil no less, and administration officials talk about Ukrainian territorial concessions without getting much more from Putin than a vague ‘compromise’ on his demands for even more of that country’s territory than Russia currently occupies,” the expert stressed.
Verona also pointed out that the only security guarantee for Ukraine is a vague reference to European forces being stationed in the country, presumably as a trip wire or backstop.
One of the possible outcomes of the summit could be a “half-baked ceasefire” which would be followed by pressure put on Ukraine to accede to it, the expert suggests: “But anybody who knows Putin understands that it would be a temporary ceasefire at best. The only question would be, how long would it last before Putin resumed his onslaught.”
Verona also sees a possibility that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s domestic opponents or other actors might try to use such a ceasefire to press for lifting the state of emergency and holding elections.
Meanwhile, the prospect of Zelensky being replaced “might well appeal to Trump and Putin, but it would likely undermine Ukraine’s diplomatic and military position at a very delicate juncture”, the U.S. expert believes.
He also explains that any territorial swap, as posited by the Trump administration, would require approval by Ukraine’s parliament, if not by a national referendum.
On a separate note, Edward Verona pointed to a certain irony in the choice of Alaska as the venue for Friday’s meeting, recalling that it was Russian territory until the U.S. purchased it in 1867 for a bargain price, notwithstanding those who criticized the deal at the time as “Seward’s folly.”
“Some Russian nationalists have suggested that Russia should renounce the sale and reclaim Alaska. Some political wags might wonder if Alaska could get thrown into whatever deal comes about,” the expert says, tongue in cheek.
As Ukrinform reported earlier, British lawyer and former ICC judge Howard Morrison had expressed concern about negotiations on Ukraine’s future, which may take place in Alaska with the participation of U.S. President Donald Trump and Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin without full representation from Ukraine.
Donald Trump intends to meet with Vladimir Putin on August 15 in Alaska.
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine emphasized that Putin wants to exchange a pause in the war for legalizing the occupation of part of Ukraine’s territory.
According to NBC News, the White House is also considering inviting the president of Ukraine to Alaska on Friday, August 15.
