🔗 Share this article

For a brief period, Donald Trump seemed to adopt a strong position on Ukraine. After making warnings of "severe ramifications" in August in case Putin continued blocking peace discussions, Trump eventually imposed considerable restrictions on Russia's primary petroleum corporations, Lukoil and Rosneft. This decision substantially hindered the Russian leader's capability to fund his war effort in the region.

But, via his newly presented detailed peace initiative for the conflict, which was created by US and Russian representatives lacking Ukrainian or European involvement, the former president has apparently gone back to his pro-Putin approach.

Rewarding Aggression

This initiative would essentially benefit Putin for attacking a sovereign nation while leaving Ukraine's democracy in danger. Although strong statements that "Ukraine's independence will be affirmed", much of the proposal actually undermine that very autonomy. What represents a Moscow's wish would certainly be a disaster for Ukraine.

Reflecting his real-estate experience, the former president persists to consider the war as a simple land disagreement, implying giving Russia a part of Ukraine's land will appease the president. However, Putin's invasion is not only about controlling a destroyed region of deindustrialized land in eastern Ukraine. It is about the nation's political system – and Putin's clear desire to destroy it so it stops functions as an attractive example for the Russian people of the accountable governance that Putin's increasing authoritarian rule prevents them.

Border Surrenders

While maintaining in position the presently split oblasts of these areas, the plan would require the nation to give up the whole this eastern territory. Aside from benefiting the Russian Federation with area that its military have been unable to seize in over a lengthy period of fighting, this concession would render Ukraine's defenses dangerously compromised.

The area is the place of Ukraine's highly-touted "defensive line", the well-established military defenses that constitute a key obstacle to enemy progress. The proposal would have Ukraine abandon these positions, giving Russian forces a clear route to Kyiv should he later opt to resume the war.

Defense Reductions

Then, in a action that would make additional fighting simpler for Russia, the plan would require the nation to reduce the numbers of its troops from their current approximately 800,000 troops to a cap of 600,000. Significantly, the proposal imposes no such limits on Russia's military.

In what appears as a gesture to Russia's campaign to characterize Ukraine's legitimate government as Nazis, the proposal asserts: "All radical doctrine and activities must be opposed and prohibited." Apparently to underscore this point, it demands that "The nation will hold elections in three months" of a peace deal. Meanwhile, the proposal places no condition that Putin risk his regime by conducting votes in his own country.

Protection Guarantees

Admittedly, the plan includes Russia promise not to "invade other states" and to "establish in law its policy of peaceful relations towards Europe and the Ukrainian people". But given that the Russian leadership has breached equivalent agreements in the past – such as the 1994 agreement, in which Russia committed to honor Ukraine's borders in exchange for giving up its historical atomic arms, and the Minsk accords, in which Moscow agreed to a halt in fighting and a handback of captured territory in the Donbas to the government – why should the international community have confidence in this commitment on this occasion?

That is why Ukraine has been so insistent on external defense commitments. Although the initiative promises a "immediate unified defense action" in case the Russian Federation resume its military campaign, and provides that "Ukraine will receive dependable protection assurances", the particulars include fuzzy to alarming. The initiative would not only prevent Ukraine Nato membership but also prohibit alliance nations from stationing military personnel on Ukraine's soil, thereby precluding the peacekeeping contingent, likely led by the UK and France, on which Ukraine had been counting to prevent Putin from replenishing his weakened troops, rearming, and attacking again.

International Response

A separate supplementary accord reportedly would grant Ukraine with a alliance-like defense commitment, in which any subsequent "major, deliberate, and ongoing aggression" by the Russian Federation on the country "shall be regarded as an assault threatening the stability and safety of the allied countries." This indicates a defense action. However in contrast to a powerful national defense – Ukraine's most reliable deterrent against future Russian aggression – the success of the supplementary deal would rely on the dedication of Nato leaders, including the US administration, to react through arms to Russia's hostilities, a response they have {not