Fine Line For President Trump Between How He Views A Meeting Supporting His Preferred Russia-Ukraine Outcome(s) Or Feels The Target Of A Political Gang Bang. Article-5 Lite? Like Half-Pregnant?
Extremely Fine Line For President Trump Between How He Views A Meeting Supporting His Preferred Outcome(s) Or Him Feeling Target Of A Political Gang Bang.
Witkoff: Article 5-Like Protection For Ukraine. Like Half-Pregnant? Advisable? Doable?
Using Frozen Russian Federation Central Bank Assets? President Trump A No For Approximately US$5 Billion Held In The United States And Loan Of US$20 Billion.
United Kingdom Will Have A Challenge Maintaining Financial Commitment To Ukraine- US$18 Billion Part Of A US$50 Billion Five-Year Budget Hole?
Who Has The Trap Door Lever? Think Charade and Who Is Joshua And Who Is Bartholomew?
Media Reporting: 22 August 2025 Trilateral For Putin, Trump, Zelensky?
Today, Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine (2019-2024; term extended due to imposition of martial law in 2022), will visit Donald Trump, President of the United States (2017-2021 and 2025-2029), at The White House in Washington DC.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss how to process outcomes from the meeting of President Trump and Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation (2000-2008 and 2012-2030), on 15 August 2025 at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson located in Anchorage, Alaska.
President Zelensky will be accompanied delegation comprising two heads of state, three heads of government, a “unique partnership” administrative president, and a military organization secretary-general.
Delegation: Emmanuel Macron, President of the Republic of France (2017-2027); Alexander Stubb, President of the Republic of Finland (2024-2030); Friedrich Merz, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany (2025- ); Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of the Republic of Italy (2022- ); Sir Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) (2024- ); Ursula von der Leyen, President of the twenty-seven-country member Brussels, Belgium-based European Commission (EC) (2019-2029): (NOTE: Dr. von der Leyen wrote her participation is at the request of President Zelensky and did not write her participation is at the request of President Trump); and Mark Rutte, Secretary-General of the thirty-two-country member Brussels, Belgium-based North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (2024- ).
NOTE: The country representation of the delegation represents two who are heads of state; three who are heads of government; three who are among seven members of the G7; four who are among twenty-seven members of the EU; five who are among thirty-two members of NATO; two who are among five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council; five are among (approximately) thirty-two members of the Ukraine-focused “coalition of the willing.”
G7 (2014-Present): Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, and United States. The Russian Federation was excluded from the G8 in 2014 because of its military actions in the internationally-recognized territory of Ukraine.
EU: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.
NATO: United States, United Kingdom, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Albania, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Romania, Germany, Slovakia, Greece, Slovenia, Hungary, Spain, Turkiye, Latvia, and North Macedonia, Sweden.
Is NATO “Article 5-Lite” Possible? And Advisable?
Can NATO be “half-pregnant” without shifting further from consensus in decision-making towards majority rule?
Creating a Ukraine-centric Article 5 will provide additional resolve-probing targets for President Putin and other adversaries.
President Putin knows the wording of Article 5. He knows NATO leadership in Brussels fears most an adversary probing, testing Article 5 to determine the collective response from NATO members- who would opt in, who would opt out, and what those opting in would be prepared to do absent all NATO members responding as one.
Unlikely all NATO member political leadership would commit military personnel into the territory of Ukraine if there were a risk of death or injury. Doing so could create a domestic a potential political problem that could influence elections.
As written, Article 5 is perceived and marketed as far more expansive than its words require. If there is an “Article 5-Lite” for the government of Ukraine, how much less or how much more would it require? The more robust the wording, the more likely individual NATO members will gravitate away from implementing it. The more weak the wording, the more likely the government of Ukraine will have any comfort from it.
Article 5 does not require any member to invoke a military response.
From NATO- Article 5
“With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.”
“This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.””
“At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.”
Any security guarantee provided by the Trump-Vance Administration (2025-2029) within the context of an armistice, ceasefire, peace agreement, or other document executed by the government of the Russian Federation and government of Ukraine will most certainly have a payment component. Unknown if the payment terms will be cash-in-advance, with payment terms, or with financing. There will be a United States-based company export component.
President Trump may believe the “coalition of the willing” which he recognizes neither represents most EU members nor has consensus by members of NATO, is welcome, for now, to purchase military equipment from the United States and fund their military personnel for operations, including in Ukraine. However, no need for United States military personnel to be on the territory of Ukraine, regardless of how that territory is measured.
No Seizing Russian Federation Central Bank Assets
President Trump will not endorse the confiscation of approximately US$340 billion in assets of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation frozen since 24 February 2022.
There are approximately US$5 billion in assets frozen in the United States with the remainder primarily within countries in the EU.
From President Trump’s perspective, if the EU wants to seize and then confiscate the funds within their jurisdiction, so be it. However, first set aside at least U$20 billion to reimburse United States taxpayers- United States obligation from a US$50 billion loan in 2024 to the government of Ukraine during Biden-Harris Administration (2021-2025). The loan is to be repaid using a portion of expected annual interest of US$3 billion from the approximately US$340 billion, but not from the principle.
Can Starmer Government Financially Commit US$306 Billion To Ukraine?
Prime Minister Starmer has again reiterated his government, and therefore taxpayers in the United Kingdom, will support the government of Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” Will taxpayers go along with him?
On 18 August 2025: “This year, the UK will contribute £4.5 billion of military support to Ukraine- more than ever before, as well as launching a new landmark partnership share battlefield technology.” The Starmer Administration recently provided data indicating a cumulative five-year potential United Kingdom budget shortfall of approximately US$44 billion. Approximately US$18 billion of the five-year cumulative United Kingdom budget shortfall he is directing toward the government of Ukraine.
On 16 January 2025, Prime Minister Starmer and President Zelensky signed a 100-year agreement which included provisions for approximately US$3.6 billion in annual military assistance- meaning US$306 billion in total United Kingdom taxpayer spending for Ukraine. For 2024-2025, the annual budget of the United Kingdom consists of approximately US$1.39 trillion in revenue and approximately US$1.55 trillion in spending resulting in a deficit of approximately US$155.2 billion. The US$306 billion represents in totality approximately 19% of the 2024-2025 spending by the government of the United Kingdom. As of January 2025, national debt of the United Kingdom was approximately US$3.37 trillion. The US$306 billion represents in totality approximately 10% of the national debt of the United Kingdom.
Like the United Kingdom, the governments of France, Germany, and Italy will be equally challenged to maintain taxpayer-funded support to the government of Ukraine particularly if the armed forces of Ukraine do not maintain at minimum their current lines of contact with the armed forces of the Russian Federation.
A perceived strengthening of positioning by the armed forces of the Russian Federation coupled with a continuing survivability of the economy of the Russian Federation will result in governments (EU members and NATO members) advocating for seizure and confiscation of assets of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.
The more of the approximately US$340 billion in assets frozen of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation are directed to current Ukraine-related commercial, economic, financial, and military priorities, the less will be available for reparations and reconstruction. And the Trump-Vance Administration will want approximately US$20 billion reserved to repay United States taxpayers for a 2024 loan disbursement to the government of Ukraine.
Who Controls The Trap Door Lever?
The seven-member delegation and President Zelensky must with President Trump simultaneously:
Express support for whatever President Trump believes he accomplished during his meeting with President Putin in Alaska.
Express support for President Trump’s EU-related, NATO-related, and Ukraine-related strategies from his first term and since his inauguration for his second and final term, which concludes at 12:00 pm on 20 January 2029.
Do not disagree with President Trump in public and attempt to massage any disagreement with him in private- even then with use extreme caution. Candor is not a character trait that President Trump admires.
Attempt to create a narrative where whatever the result of the delegation meeting with President Trump, that he believes the result was due to him and the result bears his imprimatur. However, and failure, now of in the future, will not be apportioned to him.
The 1963 motion picture, Charade, the climax is a late-night chase into an empty theatre in Paris. Cary Grant (Peter Joshua/Brian Cruikshank) is underneath the stage and listening to the impact of footsteps by Walter Matthau (Hamilton Bartholomew) as he positions to shoot Audrey Hepburn (Regina Lampert) who is hiding, but partially exposed in the prompt box. Underneath the stage, Peter Joshua believes he locates the trap door release lever which will result in Hamilton Bartholomew falling to his death. Moments before releasing the lever, Peter Johua selects a different lever, pulls it, and Hamilton Bartholomew falls. Link To Video (2:49 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaYJEIkkz8U
Who is Joshua and who is Bartholomew? For President Zelensky, he knows President Trump has capacity to align with either character, albeit permanently or temporarily.
One character can retain President Zelensky on stage. The other character drops him from the stage, but in the 18 August 2025 political incarnation, after dropping him from the stage, he politically perversely lifts him up again and accepts credit for returning him to the stage. There is the same collective and individual jeopardy for the seven-member delegation accompanying President Zelensky.
If President Trump believes he has been embarrassed and “politically ganged-banged” the response will be harsh. He may endorse Finland, France, Germany, Italy, and United Kingdom seeking to convince their taxpayers to fund approximately US$60+ billion annually to support the government of Ukraine (particularly given the EU has extended membership to Ukraine) and armed forces of Ukraine to engage actively militarily with the armed forces of the Russian Federation, they are welcomed to do so.
