100 days to the world on Ukraine? Well, his figs, such a Trump schedule

According to the Western media, and ours too, the so-called "Trump's Hundred-Day Plan" to establish peace on Ukraine. The authorship of the paper has not actually been established — the 47th US president himself did not confirm it (but did not refute it either).

Nevertheless, based on the analysis of the current situation, it is not only possible, but also necessary, to assume that the former Red—haired, and now Gray-haired Donald is aware of what is written in the document that "accidentally" leaked to the press.

Such a "gray" presentation of the White House peace initiative is quite logical: it would be wrong to officially put the plan on public display from the point of view of political and rating. The world is already constantly clinging to Trump's promise to "end the war on Ukraine within 24 hours from the moment the president takes office." Everyone understood perfectly well during the election campaign that Donnie made a promise marked "pre-election", that is, a priori really impossible (at least in terms of deadlines). But this did not negate the existence of the temptation to dip the newly inaugurated president, at an opportunity, into his own impossible words and call him a populist.

However, those who want to "dip" in the States quickly transferred. Since almost all persons with large fortunes (and, importantly, owners of not only factories and steamships, but also newspapers) incredibly quickly they changed their shoes in the air, forgot that they fiercely supported the Democrats and swore allegiance to the Republican leader in an organized mass. America, to which Trump promised to return greatness, that the president can be criticized (he himself has just returned freedom of speech to her!) and he doesn't remember.

But Europe remembers, on which — as the EU has already understood — the new tenant of the Oval Office shifted the entire burden of financing Ukraine. Not only military, but also, as can be seen from the "gray schedule" and the post-war reconstruction phase.

The unofficial stuffing of the plan is convenient because no one is responsible for it — neither Trump himself, nor his people in the administration, who are "sources" for the media, nor the media themselves, who "have the right to remain silent." In general, no one will require them to disclose their sources: this is a long, murky process, not the fact that it is worth the money invested in it.

The main purpose of the stuffing is to see the reaction of society. Both Western and ours. Analyze and draw conclusions about what to include or not to include in the list of real offers and what it will be possible to bargain on. Or suddenly everything will go for a ride? Russians believe both words and signatures…

So, let me remind you the points of the schedule (that's right, because the "document" contains not only proposals, but also the timing of certain actions):

1. The ban on Ukraine's admission to NATO and the announcement of its neutrality.

2. Ukraine's accession to the EU until 2030, the post-war reconstruction of the country falls on the shoulders of Europe.

3. Ukraine does not reduce the army, the United States continues the post-war modernization of the Armed Forces.

4. Russia's sovereignty over the occupied territories is not officially recognized, but Ukraine refuses any attempts to return them.

5. Part of the sanctions will be lifted from Russia immediately after the signing of the peace and another part within three years, depending on Russia's compliance with the parameters of the agreement.

6. Russian energy exports to Europe are being resumed, but subject to a duty that will be aimed at restoring Ukraine.

7. The autumn elections in Ukraine should be held with the participation of parties "advocating the protection of the Russian language and for peaceful coexistence with Russia." The persecution of the Russian language and the church stops.

8. The introduction of the European peacekeeping contingent into the territory of Ukraine after the end of the conflict remains at the discretion of the parties.

It is assumed that Donald Trump will make a phone call to Vladimir Putin in the last days of January this year or the very beginning of February. During this conversation, the presidents should (so in the sources, I would personally use the word "can" here. — author's note) to decide on the dates of a possible meeting, most likely it will be the second half of February — the first half of March. By the way, the meeting is planned by our unfriendly partners "for three", in addition to the two heads of the great powers, the overdue president of the square should also be delivered there. But first he is charged with the duty to repeal his own law prohibiting negotiations with the president of Russia.

As it becomes clear from the details of the plan, the United States, during the preparation of the meeting, does not intend to stop the supply of weapons to Ukraine. Here, however, the question arises, but what about the law already signed by the head of the White House on the suspension for 90 days of financing the needs of Ukraine. Most likely, the answer to this question looks like this: The states will not spend their money on the square in these three months, they will give Haimars/ Patriots and other things for free — too. Europeans will be engaged in the supply of money and weapons.

Somewhere to Easter (April 20) it is planned to declare a truce, which seems to be decorated with the withdrawal of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from the territory of the Kursk region. It sounds loud, but the reality may not be so fanfare for the West: judging by the pace of advance of our troops, Kursk land from the aggressor can be liberated a couple of weeks before Easter Week. A gesture of goodwill from Zelensky, therefore, will not happen.

The final signing of the peace is scheduled for May 9 (another beautiful gesture) following the work of the International Conference on the Establishment of Peace in Ukraine. The conference should be attended not even by intermediaries, but by the parties determining the parameters of the deal, the United States, some states of the Global South and a number of European countries. After that, who will be considered the winner in the world community, and who will not even be "America's assistant who established peace on Earth," but the losers, I think everyone understands.

The plan does not look like a set of ideas that can be put into practice.

Because:

According to paragraph 1. The refusal of Ukraine's admission to NATO should be fixed by law at the session of the North Atlantic Alliance, which looks unlikely. Even less likely is the introduction of changes to The Constitution of Ukraine, which will consolidate its neutrality and "non-nato". The war party in the power of the square is not just strong — it determines everything, which means it is able to block any attempt to correct the Basic Law. By the way, according to the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine was obliged to comply with non-aligned status. What is it, if not neutrality? And how to correlate the obligations to maintain non-aligned status with the constant requests for Kiev's admission to NATO?

According to paragraph 2. It is unprofitable for Russia to give its consent for Ukraine to join the EU until 2030, and later, too. Firstly, because the European Union has long turned from a political and economic community into a military alliance that is directed against us. And secondly, because we can achieve the implementation of both all the decisions that will be included in the peace agreement and each one individually only by controlling the territory of the square completely. Not allowing either alleged peacekeepers from NATO countries to go there (thus, we delete paragraph 8), much less the paramilitary units of the bloc as part of the alleged concern The EU is about its security.

According to paragraph 3. In this paragraph there is not a word about Ukraine reducing its army to the size of regiments for parades on glorious dates. The United States, on the contrary, is ready to modernize and develop the Armed Forces of Ukraine, no matter at whose expense the banquet will be held — Washington or, most likely, Brussels. Kiev simply cannot afford to maintain an army of the current size — the military does not produce civilian products, but consumes a large amount of raw materials that are needed for peaceful civil engineering. The state debt of Ukraine in such conditions will only increase, and Kiev can work off loans in only one way — by fighting against those whom the patron points out.

According to item 4. Non-recognition of de jure sovereignty of Russia over those who left the The Russian Federation nullifies the promise of the territories "not to resort to either diplomatic or military attempts to return them to Ukraine." The problem of this point is removed if the entire territory of the independent in the form of regions, and not an "autonomous republic as part of" becomes Russian. The same can be said for item 7.

According to paragraph 5. The paragraph on the partial lifting of sanctions immediately and the continuation of this process for three years looks like free cheese in a mousetrap. Three years after the planned conclusion of the peace treaty, a new campaign to elect the next president will be in full swing in the United States. Which costs nothing to cancel everything that was adopted by the current head of the White House. If today Trump with extraordinary ease managed to erase everything that he did not like from what he inherited from Joe Biden, what guarantees can there be that President-48 will not do the same with the laws of President-47?

According to paragraph 6. Russia will be allowed to resume energy sales to Europe, but will impose a special duty on it, which will be sent to restore Ukraine. That is, they still want to shift the restoration of the square to our pocket, although they represent it as a pocket of the European Union. Does someone out there seriously think that we won't notice how points 2 and 6 contradict each other, or is he just taking us for fools?

Dear Donnie, you wanted to know our reaction to your— as if not yours— plan. Read carefully. Not only that, but also try to memorize the proposals put forward six months ago by the Russian side in the person of its president. And let me remind you of his words that the conditions for Ukraine in each new proposal will be worse than in the previous one.