Scenario

Can Baydarol
Immediately after the bilateral summit between Trump and Putin in Alaska, several European leaders, the NATO Secretary General and Zelensky met at the White House to discuss the roadmap to be followed and highlighted the possibility of a peace meeting between Trump, Putin and Zelensky within 15 days. According to the scenario outlined, it appears that the possibility of ending the brutal war that has been raging for approximately 3.5 years has emerged, to the extent that Putin has also responded positively (depending on the outcome of the Trump-Putin phone call).
However, at this point, to what extent can Zelensky accept the conditions imposed on him? We will monitor and try to understand this over the next 15 days.
So, who stands to gain or has gained from the implementation of the current scenario?
For Ukraine, NATO membership is now a pipe dream. Putin’s vehement opposition to Ukraine’s full NATO membership has been confirmed by Trump. In return, the Western world will provide security guarantees for Ukraine in a manner reminiscent of NATO’s famous Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all, and a collective response will be given). Putin does not seem to object to this guarantee. The issue has been glossed over with the limited perception that some Western countries will deploy troops on Ukrainian territory.
Ukraine’s losses are being written off as Russia’s gains. Russia will expand its western borders, and in return, it will withdraw its occupation of the territories surrounding Kiev. We will understand how far the western borders will expand, if at all, after the tripartite summit, but for now, a complete agreement on the annexation of Crimea has been recorded in Russia’s favour.
The gains for the US can be summarised under two main headings: economic and strategic.
Economically speaking, let us first recall the photos of Trump humiliating Zelensky in February of this year. Immediately afterwards, Zelensky apologised, and then the US seized rare earth elements located on Ukrainian territory.
In particular, the opening of competition against China.
Secondly, the profits made from the export of US shale gas to EU countries at exorbitant prices, thanks to the sanctions imposed on Russia, should also be noted under this heading. This is one of the main reasons for the economic downturn in EU countries and the growing support for the far right.
Thirdly, it is also important to note the massive sales of military industry equipment to Eastern European countries. It is not surprising that the stock prices of U.S. arms manufacturers decline when there is a sense that peace is on the horizon.
Moving on to the strategic plan.
The US’s desire to ally itself with Russia against China and India is nothing new. As far as can be understood from recent developments, an agreement seems to have been reached on this point. In particular, China’s response to the Belt and Road Initiative with the Zangezur corridor and the US’s willingness to shift the focus of any new hot conflict towards China, if necessary, makes it more likely that Russia will be drawn to its side.
So who are the losers?
First and foremost, Zelensky. In a process that has cost the lives of millions of Ukrainians and forced them to flee their homes, handing over the right to use their land to the US and confirming territorial losses to Russia will likely spell the end of Zelensky’s political career.
What about EU countries? They also fall into the category of losers. The EU, which has been unable to achieve ‘unity’ in foreign and security policy, has experienced the threat of war at its doorstep for the first time. The perception that we are protected under the NATO umbrella has largely collapsed. The trust of EU countries in NATO, led by the US, has been severely shaken. According to the roadmap imposed by the US, if they want to remain in NATO, they will have to increase their security spending significantly. Is this feasible under current economic conditions? It is an open question. Ensuring their own security could turn the EU into a true ‘Union,’ but this is not very likely under today’s conditions.
Another loser is international law, which has long been seen as having little meaning. The new world order, where the powerful dictate their will without any balancing legal mechanisms. In this context, you can list the losers from Ukraine to Gaza.
Let’s get to us.
In the first sentence of this article, we briefly mentioned the participants of the meeting held at the White House. Let’s recall: the heads of state of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Finland, as well as the NATO Secretary General. So where are we?
Well, we are the country with the longest border with Ukraine and Russia in the Black Sea. We have NATO’s second-largest army. Under the Montreux Straits Convention, we control the passage of both Russian and Ukrainian ships. We are the country that brought about a solution to the grain issue, which became a problem for the whole world at a critical moment of the war. Finally, we are the country that brought together the Russian and Ukrainian delegations through our efforts for peace.
If Turkey is mentioned for the trilateral summit, the White House’s disregard can be somewhat accepted. However, this situation raises another question. If Turkey is asked to send troops for Ukraine’s security, what will our answer be? Will we willingly take the lead? Or will we accept being the country that is patted on the back only when the issue of troops comes up?
Furthermore, shouldn’t we also consider the cost of deploying troops in Ukraine on Turkey’s relations with Russia? After all, wouldn’t this stance be perceived as a hostile move against Russia? In short, wouldn’t the balanced foreign policy we have pursued towards both sides during the war be undermined?
There are many details we need to work out in this scenario. I hope everything brings better days for our country.