Trump’s Ceasefire and Ukraine’s Peace
Responding to Boot, Ikenberry, and James
Max Boot’s Substack post, “Trump finally pressures Russia,” and G. John Ikenberry and Harold James’s Foreign Affairs article, “Would a Peace Deal in Ukraine Last?” tackle the Ukraine-Russia war from complementary angles—Boot cheering Trump’s tactical 30-day ceasefire proposal, announced after Jeddah talks on March 11, 2025, and Ikenberry and James probing the durability of any settlement. Boot sees Trump’s move—resuming intelligence sharing and arms supplies—as a rare squeeze on Putin, potentially exposing Russia’s intransigence. Ikenberry and James, drawing on history (Napoleon’s 1807 Niemen River deal, post-WWII Germany), argue peace needs economic ties, societal buy-in, and great-power enforcement (U.S., China) to stick, warning of collapse if Ukraine’s reconstruction falters. Both pieces spotlight a pivotal moment; my research frameworks—justice, complexity, pluralism—deepen their insights, revealing opportunities and risks in this fragile gambit.
2017: Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Relations: A Distributive Justice Issue
My 2017 book frames sovereignty disputes as distributive justice dilemmas—who gets what, and at whose expense? Boot’s ceasefire aligns here: Ukraine gains a lifeline—intelligence to hit Russian depots (Axios, March 11) and arms to bolster defenses (Reuters)—while Russia faces a choice: pause its Kursk offensive (100+ km² reclaimed, The Times) or lose diplomatic cred. Ikenberry and James extend this—peace must meet “legitimate postwar aspirations” (52% of Ukrainians favor talks, Gallup 2024) but not cede 20% of Ukraine (73% oppose, Al Jazeera), risking an unjust reward for Russia’s aggression (UN Charter Article 2(4) breached). Justice splits define this war—Ukraine’s survival (Article 51) versus Russia’s grab (Independent). Trump’s shift pressures Putin to justify refusal, as Boot notes, potentially redistributing leverage. Ikenberry and James’s economic anchor—rebuilding Ukraine ($100 billion, Euronews)—echoes my fairness call: who pays? My co-governance concept—shared zones like a demilitarized Donbas—could balance this, satisfying Ukraine’s security (Reuters aid) and Russia’s buffer (Newsweek), though Putin’s edge (North Korean troops, CNN) and mistrust (73% Ukrainian rejection) signal a deep rift.
2020: Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics
In Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics (2020), I see disputes as multidimensional—rational, empirical, axiological—demanding layered analysis. Boot doubts Putin will agree, and Ikenberry and James fear a shaky deal’s collapse; both are grounded. Legally, the ceasefire’s informal (no UN mandate, Reuters), while peace needs enforcement (1971 Berlin Treaty precedent, Foreign Affairs); empirically, Russia’s Kursk gains (38.6 sq miles, The Times) and Ukraine’s losses (70% air defenses, NYT) tilt the field; axiologically, Putin’s empire (ethnic cleansing, Foreign Affairs 2022) clashes with Zelenskyy’s democracy (82% anti-concession, May 2022). Trump’s intelligence (The Guardian drone strikes) and arms (Biden stockpiles, Reuters) shift power, as Boot highlights, but Putin’s rejection (no short truces, Independent) and Minsk II’s failure (2015, Al Jazeera) test my theory—complexity craves flexibility, not rigidity. Ikenberry and James’s great-power fix—U.S.-China guarantors—adds rational heft, but Russia’s momentum (10 sorties, Reuters) and Ukraine’s defiance (Zelenskyy’s X, March 11) complicate it. My adaptable sovereignty—temporary truces or joint zones—could bridge Boot’s wedge and their stability, yet history warns of shallow roots.
2023: Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory
My 2023 work, Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory, views conflicts as multi-agent, multi-normative webs—Boot’s Trump-Putin dynamic and Ikenberry and James’s global framework fit this. Agents span Ukraine (Zelenskyy’s “positive” X post), U.S. (Trump’s envoy, Axios), Russia (Sobolev’s fears, Mirror), and beyond (Saudi talks, NYT; Starmer’s coalition, Reuters). Norms collide—peace (ceasefire) versus power (Kursk gains)—with Boot’s short-term win (intelligence targeting HQs, Axios) rippling globally, as my pluralism predicts. Ikenberry and James’s peacekeeping—France-UK for Ukraine, China-Central Asia for Russia—mirrors my multi-agent lens, but Putin’s distrust (Peskov’s wait-and-see, Reuters) and Trump’s volatility (X’s “no wars,” March 8) challenge it. My co-sovereignty—shared border control—could anchor their economic bridge (Ukraine as EU-Russia link), yet Russia’s trillion-ruble “new regions” budget (Wikipedia) and Ukraine’s resilience (Gallup) demand mindset shifts I’ve long urged.
Synthesis of Boot and Ikenberry-James
Boot’s optimism—Trump pressuring Russia—lands with Ukraine’s edge (arms, intelligence) and Putin’s bind (Kursk or optics), while Ikenberry and James’s caution—a deal must endure—grounds it in history. My 2017 justice sees Trump’s move tilting fairness—Ukraine’s breather versus Russia’s burden—but Ikenberry and James warn of post-deal justice: $50 billion from Europe (Reuters) versus Russia’s frozen assets (Foreign Affairs). Boot’s aid plea (minerals deal, The Times) aligns with my fairness call, though Trump’s mercuriality—cutting aid (Telegraph) then flipping (NBC)—echoes their stability fears. My 2020 complexity ties Boot’s wedge (Putin’s “no” exposes rigidity, Reuters) to their Berlin hope (détente), but Minsk’s ghosts linger. My 2023 pluralism merges Boot’s local gain with their global fix—Saudi mediation (NYT) and U.S.-China roles—but Putin’s edge (North Korean aid, CNN) and Ukraine’s stance (73% no ceding) test it.
Boot’s wedge is a crack; Ikenberry and James’s peace is a structure. Together, they frame Trump’s ceasefire (NBC) as a test—my works suggest it probes justice (2017), complexity (2020), and pluralism (2023). Putin’s “no” could spark hybrid U.S. moves (sanctions, X@strujillo075), as Boot hints, but Ikenberry and James’s history—post-WWI Germany’s despair—warns of collapse without economic roots. A pause isn’t peace, but paired with guarantors, it could shift dynamics. Russia’s response—rejection or reluctant yes—will reveal if this crack widens or seals shut.
Invitation to “The Borders We Share”
This moment echoes my new series, “The Borders We Share,” launched a few days ago. In my latest post (https://london1701.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-borders-we-share-khemeds-oil.html), I explore Crimea’s 2014 shadow—Russia’s 2 million residents versus Ukraine’s claim—as a mindset trap mirroring today’s stakes. Blending fiction (Khemed’s oil) and reality (Crimea’s limbo), I propose co-sovereignty—shared borders—to break rigid divides. Boot’s ceasefire and Ikenberry and James’s guarantors test this: can rethinking borders, as I urge, turn Trump’s 30 days into a framework? My works seek such openings—readers are invited to join me in exploring these shared edges, where Ukraine’s future hangs.
AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):
State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)
AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:
Wednesday 12th March 2025
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World
No comments:
Post a Comment