A truce is always better than a war, and this involves the ceasefire of fire which the Ukraineafter discussions with the United States in Saudi Arabia, he says he is ready to follow, provided that Russia will do so. It is also good that Americans and Ukrainians speak after the episode of Donald Trump with Volodimir Zelenski at the Oval Office earlier this month. But the Ukrainian president is right to remain cautious about the upcoming peace negotiations.

The meaning of US peacekeeping efforts under Trump is to impose, for the sake of reaching any agreement, a bad and unfair agreement on the nation that fell victim to its aggression Russia Since 2014 and its violent full -scale invasion by 2022. Trump has reversed the ethical roles in the conflict, accusing Ukraine and not the Russian president. It is clear that Trump will ask for a lot of Zelenski and very little by Putin. To begin with, Trump prevented Ukraine’s accession to NATO and left no doubt that he was expecting large territorial concessions from Ukraine.

All of the above cause parallels with the movements of the past. THE Larry Samersa former US finance minister, Bloomberg told Bloomberg that the upcoming settlement could be “an agreement that resembles Versailles, which would be imposed, not on attackers, but on the victims of the attack”. Referred to the Treaty of Versailles which ended World War I, but in terms of observers such as John Moinard Keynes, they considered so devastating and humiliating to Germany to secure a new war in a short time. The fact that Ukraine, unlike Germany in 1914he did nothing to challenge today’s war, he would make such an even more difficult result.

But there are more relevant and recent proportions to the current situation, according to historian Ian Horwood. One is Vietnam in the early 1970s. As the US in 2022 stand by Ukraine’s side, they once supported the Southern Vietnamwhich was attacked by Northern Vietnam, which in turn was supported by China and the Soviet Union. A big difference with the situation in Ukraine now was that the US had soldiers in the area. A similarity was that the Washington He had begun to regard the conflict as a lost and wanted to end it, with President Richard Nixon being willing to play the role of the pacifist.

Then, as now, the US actually forced their ally in negotiations threatening to withdraw any support. She also offered to her ally, something that turned out to be loose security assurances. In a letter to his counterpart from South Vietnam, Nixon reiterated “my personal assurances that the United States will react very strongly and quickly to any violation of the agreement”. This answer was understood that it would be a massive airspace. Paris’s peace agreements were signed in 1973. However, when the North Vietnamese launched a new attack two years later, the US (now led by Gerald Ford) retreated and South Vietnam fell.

In his first term, Trump was in a hurry to end the war in Afghanistan, which he also considered a deadlock. Thus, his government began to speak directly to the Taliban, without including the Afghan government supported by America.

These talks led to the Doha’s 2020 agreement, in which the Afghan government was sidelined and the US agreed with the Taliban, who promised not to allow terrorists in Afghanistan and to talk to the government. But when they violated these commitments, the Americans continued to withdraw. And when Biden took over, he hastily leaving, letting the government collapse and the Taliban to occupy Kabul.

The worrying pattern is that the United States, when they are willing to settle a foreign chaos, tend to oust allies, give too much to the opponents, and eventually move away from the commitments given.

Trump had a difficult relationship with the Ukrainian president from his first term. But for Zelenski, he should not matter who his interlocutor is, as he did not have a big difference to the South Biomezers or Afghans if Nixon or Ford, Trump or Biden abandoned them. Kiev’s job is to ensure that Ukraine survives as a nation …