A declaration by Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, the most understandable of Trump’s men, helps us to understand what happened in the oval study on 28 February last, not being able to count on the reading of diplomatic practice and American history, on the statements to the press and on the communicative strategy of the sorceress.

Rubio clearly enuncies the intent of the Trump administration: there is a conflict to which we intend to end; The only way to try to do it is to convince Putin to sit at a table to discuss it. This should have been clear to everyone for some time, and appears incomprehensible as Zelensky does not share this point of view. Moreover, if you want to invite Putin to sit down, you must not insult it.

Zelensky’s priorities

In fact, Zelensky’s priorities, shared by his own parliamentary opposition, are in a different order. First of all, preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty at any cost; Secondly restore territorial integrity, and only at the third point reach peace.

Alternatively, and without prejudice to the priorities, it would be acceptable to reiterate sovereignty, reach a respite and postpone the restoration of territorial integrity to a date.

This difference does not seem to be taken into consideration by Washington. Rubio, on the other hand, is perfectly right on the point that it is necessary to avoid insulting Putin to convince him to sit at the table: the mediator (in this case Trump) must appear impartial.

The fact that someone external to Ukraine arrogates the right to resume the elected representative of a people about the priorities of his country (which we know be widely shared at home) appears at least irritated. As for the concept of presenting itself as an impartial mediator, this implies “to” undergo “not only a part of the cause, but also the other.

On the other hand, Rubio’s words are understood that the Trump administration does not have and has never had a “plan” to resolve the conflict: Trump’s “plan” consists (goes) exclusively in convincing Putin to sit at a table and start talking.

This already appears to me a fundamental misunderstanding, because European and Ukrainians instead debate on how to end the conflict and how to guarantee that this does not start again: we talk about different things.

Which negotiation with Putin

The fact that Trump’s intent was simply to convince Putin to sit at a table is not in itself to be condemned. Indeed, I imagine that most pacifists in good faith will be able to agree with it, as a potential first step towards actual peace. Rubio, in fact, proudly claims that the mere fact of being able to sit down to talk about peace is better than nothing, during a war. But it’s not a solution.

About the American diplomatic strategy, Rubio essentially states that the mining “contract” offered to Ukraine, in addition to the obvious economic content on which we can fly over, include an implicit guarantee of safety for the host country as America would have had a clear interest in defending the investments of American private companies engaged in the exploitation of Ukrainian natural resources.

However, the idea that the simple presence of American economic interests on a territory constitutes an effective deterrent to prevent armed aggression by a great military power appears extremely risky.

It is reasonable that those who should depend on their safety on this idea do not consider it sufficient. There were already American economic interests in Ukraine in 2022, and did not prevent aggression in any way. Among other things, according to Trump himself, there would even be strong interests of the same son of the President in office for the United States, and even these would have had an effective deterrent effect for Vladimir Putin.

Use choke on strategic minerals

The American strategy to convince Putin at least to sit at a table to start discussing, in the idea of ​​Trump & Co. provides (goes) an obligatory step: the signature of the mining agreement. Without this agreement, it was not possible to proceed, as this would compensate for the US of past and future past investments in Ukraine, for which Ukraine itself could only be grateful.

However, if the strategy implies (VA) the achievement not of an agreement but simply a beginning of discussion, the signature of the mining agreement was not at all fundamental for the start of the procedure. It would have been reasonable to agree on the agreement and postpone the signature to the conclusion of peace with Putin, given that in the US perspective the treaty was to constitute that guarantee that Ukraine requires.

The indispensability of the signature of the mining agreement cannot fail to appear as the “fee” to be paid to the sensal in advance with respect to the mediation from these offer, without any guarantee that this will go to the port. Even accepting an extremely cynical approach to diplomacy between nations, this still seems difficult to accept; Someone could also consider it a form of choker.

Trump is “other” compared to the free world

From the point of view of the Trump administration, moreover Ukraine is a country in difficulty “which does not have cards” and should demonstrate adequate gratitude to superpower that is committing in its favor by offering a possibility of diplomatic solution. The demonstration of gratitude takes here the form of “accessory clause” to the mining contract offered.

However, since there are dozens of documented evidence and films of countless episodes in which President Zelensky expressed his thanks and his country to America for the help received (as well as to the other western partners) over the past three years, it is clear that the respectful thanks requested by the Trump Administration would not be so much to offer to America and the Americans, but personally to Trump and his supporters, in question they were not in charge.

The attitude in which a political leader requires and demands a personal offer of preventive respect in order to grant a benevolent intervention is typical of a type of organization that is “other” compared to the legitimate government of a nation and above all of a superpower that guides the “free world”.

The closet to Zelensky

Finally, a very interesting starting point in conclusion still offers it Rubio when correctly states that it is not possible to publicly discuss the concessions that from a mediator can be and/or must be requested from the parties to reach an agreement: these must be discussed, even hard, behind closed doors.

This is basic diplomatic practice, to be followed in every negotiation, and is based on it that Trump was considered to have a plan in mind in inviting the contenders to a negotiation. If this rule is so obvious, why did the discussion with Zelensky take place in front of the press?

Trump stops military aid to Ukraine after the dispute with Zelensky