Image by Candice Seplow.

It is being reported that President Trump has developed, in close consultation with the Russian government, a 28-point “peace plan” for Ukraine.

Unsurprisingly, EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas and other European “leaders” interviewed on television have reacted with shock and horror.

Their objections to the rumored terms of this new “peace plan” include the following perceived flaws:

(1) No viable peace plan can be developed without Ukrainian participation.

(2) Peace on such terms would reward aggression.

(3) Peace on such terms would permit the aggressor to achieve through diplomacy what it was unable to achieve on the battlefield.

(4) Limiting the arms available to the victims of aggression for their future self-defense would be inconceivable.

(5) While ending the killing is desirable, any peace must be based on “just” terms.

Perhaps I missed something, but I don’t recall Madame Kallas or other European “leaders” criticizing the 20-point “peace plan” for Gaza which President Trump developed in close consultation with the Israeli government on the grounds that (i) no viable peace plan can be developed without Palestinian participation, (ii) peace on such terms would reward genocide, (iii) peace on such terms would permit the perpetrators of genocide to achieve through diplomacy what they were unable to achieve on the battlefield, (iv) limiting the arms available to the victims of genocide for their future self-defense would be inconceivable and (v) while ending the killing is desirable, any peace must be based on “just” terms.

One does not need to approve of either of President Trump’s two “peace plans” to give him credit, at least in this instance, for consistency, both in form and in substance.

The post Two Trump Peace Plans appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

From CounterPunch.org via this RSS feed