To use this site, please disable the ad blocking feature and reload the page.
This website uses cookies to collect information about your visit for purposes such as showing you personalized ads and content, and analyzing our website traffic. By clicking “Accept all,” you will allow the use of these cookies.
Users accessing this site from EEA countries and UK are unable to view this site without your consent. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
Three years have passed on Monday, Feb. 24, since Russia launched its aggression against Ukraine, and the situation has now reached a critical stage.
It has been a month since the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump. He has begun negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin for a ceasefire, but the framework in which the United States, European countries and Japan, among others, stand together against Russia’s outrage has completely changed.
The new development of the rapprochement between Washington and Moscow and the rift between the United States and Europe is unfolding exactly as Putin had hoped. This is a dangerous situation that could seriously damage the international order.
Despite urgency of ending war
In the last three years, the death toll for the Ukrainian military has reached about 46,000, and the number of those injured has reached around 380,000. The number of civilians who have been forced to evacuate both within the country and abroad has exceeded 10 million. The number of Russian soldiers killed is estimated to be 90,000.
So many lives have been lost, and innocent civilians have had their living taken away. It is urgent that the fighting comes to an end and that further casualties are prevented. Nobody can disagree with Trump’s emphasis that he wants “to stop the millions of deaths taking place” in the war.
However, the fact that Trump is prioritizing talks with Russia, which started the aggression, and is trying to move forward with negotiations without the involvement of Ukraine, which is the other party to the conflict, or Europe which supports Ukraine, is a problem.
Russia, as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, is in a position where it should take the lead in complying with the U.N. Charter, which is based on the principles against the use of armed force and of sovereign equality, but the country unilaterally started the aggression against Ukraine.
Despite such a situation, Trump did not condemn Russia and instead directed his criticism at Ukraine. He expressed his view that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy “should have never started” the war.
Furthermore, with the fact that the Ukrainian presidential election that was scheduled for last spring was postponed due to the war in mind, Trump accused Zelenskyy of being a “dictator without elections” and claimed that his public approval rating is 4%.
The actual support rate is said to be 57% in the latest survey.
This situation is almost tantamount to a case that it is as if Trump is speaking for Russia’s position. This is because Russia has long claimed that Zelenskyy has no legitimacy and has refused to negotiate with him.
Development as Russia hoped
Trump is probably hoping to show off it as his achievement by bringing the situation to a bilateral “deal” — a maneuver he is good at — and realizing a ceasefire as soon as possible, which he vowed to bring about during last year’s presidential campaign. The U.S. president has also expressed his willingness for resource development in Ukraine.
However, this is exactly what Putin has hoped for. He is succeeding in his aim to break the sanctions against Russia by the West and Japan and cooperation regarding support for Ukraine, and to drive a wedge between the democratic camp.
If Trump is impatient for results, he will be taken advantage of by the wily Putin. If the U.S. president allows Russia’s attempts to unilaterally change the status quo through force and coercion to succeed, that means he has given in to Russia, and he will not be able to avoid the accusation that he has left a bad precedent in the international community.
Isn’t Trump going to be recognized as the leader of a “great” America only when he has succeeded in difficult negotiations to aim for a ceasefire and lasting peace without making concessions to Russia?
This latest development is reminiscent of the Yalta Conference held at the end of World War II between the leaders of the United States, Britain and the then Soviet Union.
The leaders of the three countries agreed on the post-war system for Europe, but that led to the Soviet Union’s domination of Eastern Europe. For nearly half a century, the countries of Eastern Europe were treated as “satellite states” of the Soviet Union.
Europe’s participation is essential
The fate of a small country should not be left to the intentions of the great powers. The participation of Ukraine and Europe is essential in the negotiations for a ceasefire.
To achieve a ceasefire, Ukraine’s deterrent capability must be secured. However, Russia is opposed to Ukraine joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and Trump is also negative about this move.
France, Britain and other like-minded countries in Europe have expressed their plans of sending peacekeeping forces to Ukraine after a ceasefire is reached. This is worth considering as a way to prevent renewed Russian aggression, but U.S. involvement would be essential in such European moves.
The fate of a ceasefire will also have an impact on security in East Asia. If the situation is resolved in a way that makes Russia the victor, it could encourage China, which does not deny unifying Taiwan by force.
Japan has acted along with Western countries in its support for Ukraine. However, the emergence of a rift between the United States and Europe has put Japan in a difficult position. Japan should show its stance more clearly than before that it places importance on international rules and it will not allow aggression by force.
