Zelensky on Gilligan’s Island

By Kenin M. Spivak
Real Clear Wire

In the 1960's television series Gilligan’s Island, Gilligan was always telling rivals they were both right. The joke was the impossibility of that outcome. By contrast, in the Trump-Zelenskyy showdown, both are right. And wrong.

As often is true with Trump, his substantive policy objectives are sound, but his explosive personality and personal attacks mask this truth. In particular, the proposed Ukraine mineral rights deal is far more supportive of Ukraine than the administration has explained. Trump’s and Vance’s orchestrated public put down of Zelenskyy was wrong, even though Zelenskyy created the circumstances of his execution.

Zelenskyy wears military style garb as a show of solidarity with his soldiers. After being warned to wear a suit and tie in the Oval Office, he either should have done so, or ascertained whether a sports jacket would suffice. Instead, he ignored the request, neutralizing his moral high ground and abasing his patriotism.

Etiquette and groveling are part of successful diplomacy. During his visit, Zelenskyy should have been resolute and obsequious in thanking Trump and the American people for their support. Immediately after being dressed down, Zelenskyy should have apologized. Brett Baier repeatedly offered him that opportunity on Fox. Zelenskyy’s ego is directly responsible for Trump’s suspension of all military aid to Ukraine.

Zelenskyy presumed that the United States owes Ukraine a defense. The principle that America is the world’s protector, bank and patsy is foundational. In a liberal rules-based international world, it is ok to impose asymmetric barriers to trade that constrain American business, while shifting the financial and human costs of defense and humanitarian relief to the United States.

More appropriately, to induce Ukraine and other former Soviet republics to relinquish their nuclear weapons, on December 5, 1994 those republics, Russia, the United States, United Kingdom, and France entered into the Budapest Memoranda. Those agreements prohibited the nuclear powers from using military force or economic coercion against the former republics, except in self-defense or in accordance with the U.N. charter. The United States also “assured” – but did not “guarantee” – Ukraine of U.S. support if Russia breached the accords. The distinction between an assurance and a guarantee is legally clear and morally murky.

We see this quandary in Zelenskyy’s insistence on security guarantees as a condition of sharing mineral rights with the U.S. Despite Zelenskyy’s fair skepticism, Trump is right to avoid an Article 5-like trigger that could compel the U.S. to commit troops or treasure. He also is right to insist on repayment for U.S. investments in Ukraine.

The proposed mineral rights deal establishes a Reconstruction Investment Fund to be owned and managed by the United States and Ukraine. The Fund would receive 50% of most revenues from Ukrainian Government-owned natural resources, including hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, other extractable minerals, and certain infrastructure, such as liquified natural gas terminals.

The proposed terms and conditions provide that “Subject to applicable United States law, the Government of the United States of America will maintain a long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine. Further contributions may be comprised of funds, financial instruments, and other tangible and intangible assets critical for the reconstruction of Ukraine.” The Fund's investment process will “increase the development, processing and monetization of all public and private Ukrainian assets.”

The terms also deliver strong security assurances and, much more importantly, an alignment of financial interests that all but guarantees the United States will back Ukraine in any dispute with Russia. The terms declare that “The Government of the United States of America supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace. Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments.”

With 60% of Ukraine’s minerals in Russian occupied territory, this deal ensures that Trump will want to reclaim at least part of that territory for Ukraine.

While Trump’s and Vance’s public humiliation of Zelenskyy was pretextually triggered by Zelenskyy’s fair observation that the United States could eventually suffer from Russian aggression, Trump’s goal is impeccable – lasting peace in Ukraine on terms that are beneficial to Ukraine, fair to the United States, and tolerable for Vladimir Putin.

Putin is the aggressor, and in his quest to be an honest broker, Trump should not ignore that. Still, Ukraine’s flirtation with NATO was an ill-conceived taunt to Russian security, and Russia’s history with Ukraine is complex. Three of my grandparents were born in Ukraine. They spoke Russian and referred to themselves as Russians. For more than 150 years, Crimea was part of Russia or the USSR. The Donbas region has similarly strong ties to Russia.

If Zelenskyy wants a free and prosperous Ukraine, he should swallow his pride, apologize to Trump, sign the mineral deal as quickly as possible, and with Trump in the lead, bargain with Putin for secure borders. Zelensky may see the outcome as imperfect, but it is by far the best Ukraine can achieve.

Kenin M. Spivak is founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and a frequent speaker and contributor to media, including The American Mind, National Review, the National Association of Scholars, television, radio, and podcasts.