Putin might accept Trump’s invitation to participate in order to avoid offending him and not lose a seat at the table where members provide input on US policy towards settling various conflicts.
Andrew Korybko
Kremlin spokesmen Dmitry Peskov confirmed that the US invited Putin to join the Board of Peace, which refers to the UNSC-endorsed Trump-chaired group for implementing his Gaza peace plan. Interestingly, Gaza isn’t mentioned anywhere in its charter, thus lending credence to some observers’ assessments that Trump envisages it de facto replacing the UN
upon broadening its scope with time. That same charter also grants
enormous power to the group’s Chairman, the first of which will be
Trump.
He’s the only one who can invite countries to join,
terminate their membership, select the Executive Board, approve
decisions (without which they won’t enter into force), veto decisions at
any time even after they’re already being implemented, and has full
power over subsidiary entities, et al. Just as importantly, he also
chooses his successor, who automatically replaces him once he ends his
duties. Trump will basically run the Board of Peace like Mar-a-Lago,
which has obvious pros and cons.
On the positive side, this group
might actually get things done, unlike the UN. After all, Trump’s
companies have a track record of tangible accomplishments, and taking
full responsibility for everything motivates him to ensure that this
effort doesn’t fail otherwise it’ll stain his legacy. On the negative
side, all members have to defer to Trump, which some might consider
humiliating. They might still tolerate it for the sake of rebuilding
Gaza, however, but then leave after three years’ time.
The
last point segues into the clause about how the invitees can serve for
three years free of charge but then have to leave the group unless they
pay $1 billion within the first year to become permanent members. This
money will go towards rebuilding Gaza.
It’s also possible that the Board of Peace amends the charter to
mandate a smaller amount with Trump’s approval. In any case, becoming a
permanent member legally buys influence with Trump, but it doesn’t
guarantee that he’ll do what’s asked of him.
There’s also
the question of what would happen if the Republicans don’t keep the
presidency. The Board of Peace, whether still run by Trump or whoever
his successor might be (perhaps one of his sons), would then lose the
ability to influence the president and thus just become another
international group. It could still foster dialogue among its members,
but that’s not the same as shaping US policy towards Gaza in accordance
with Trump’s vision with potential input from others like it’s presently
poised to do.
For these reasons, the Board of Peace is less a replacement to the UN and more akin to a “coalition of the willing”
therein which has the political will to facilitate US-led efforts to
rebuild Gaza, but this “coalition” might also broaden its focus to
tackle other conflicts in the future. It’s with this in mind that those
invitees embroiled in such conflicts which could occupy the Board of
Peace’s attention before the end of Trump 2.0 might buy permanent
membership in order to keep this influence channel open.
The
aforesaid calculation would contextualize Russia’s possible
participation on the Board of Peace, especially as a permanent member,
which could even be for the simple purpose of not wanting to provoke
Trump by risking him being offended by Putin’s rejection of his
invitation into escalating. A supplementary motive could be that this is
a political insurance policy in the scenario, however far-fetched it
might seem, that the Board of Peace ultimately de facto replaces some of
the UN’s functions.