🔗 Share this article

At first, Donald Trump gave the impression to take a firm stance regarding Ukraine. Following making warnings of "severe consequences" last August should Vladimir Putin carried on obstructing peace negotiations, Trump finally introduced considerable sanctions on Russia's two largest oil companies, Lukoil and Rosneft. This action substantially hindered Putin's capability to fund his war effort in the region.

But, through his recently unveiled detailed peace proposal for the conflict, which was developed by US and Russian diplomats excluding Ukrainian or European input, the former president has apparently gone back to his favorable to Russia position.

Favoring Military Action

The former president's initiative would effectively benefit Putin for attacking a sovereign nation while placing Ukraine's democratic system in jeopardy. Despite strong declarations that "Ukraine's sovereignty will be upheld", much of the plan effectively compromise that essential sovereignty. This constitutes a Russian ideal would certainly be a disaster for Ukraine.

Reflecting his business experience, the former president seems to consider the Ukrainian conflict as a mere border issue, as if ceding Putin a section of Ukrainian territory will satisfy the ruler. Yet, Russia's invasion is not merely about dominating a damaged swath of industrial-devastated land in Ukraine's east. Instead, it's about Ukraine's democratic governance – and Putin's apparent desire to weaken it so it no longer functions as an appealing example for the Russia's population of the responsible government that his deepening authoritarian rule denies them.

Land Giveaways

While maintaining in status the currently split oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, Trump's plan would compel the nation to give up the whole this eastern territory. Beyond rewarding Russia with land that its troops have been failed to occupy in over a lengthy period of warfare, this giveaway would leave Ukraine's defenses severely weakened.

The area is the location of the nation's much-vaunted "fortress belt", the well-established military defenses that are a essential barrier to enemy progress. Trump would have Ukraine abandon these positions, giving Putin a unobstructed route to Kyiv in case he later decide to resume the conflict.

Armed Forces Reductions

Furthermore, in a move that would make future hostilities more feasible for Russia, the plan would mandate Ukraine to cut the numbers of its military from their current approximately 800,000 personnel to a limit of 600,000. Importantly, Trump's plan sets no equivalent restrictions on Russia's military.

Seemingly as a gesture to Putin's efforts to portray Ukraine's legitimate government as radicals, the proposal asserts: "All Nazi ideology and actions must be rejected and prohibited." Apparently to underscore this element, it demands that "The nation will hold democratic votes in this period" of a ceasefire agreement. However, the proposal places no condition that Putin endanger his dictatorship by holding votes in Russia.

Security Assurances

Certainly, the proposal makes Russia commit not to "invade other states" and to "enshrine in law its stance of non-violence towards European nations and Ukraine". But taking into account that the Russian leadership has broken similar treaties in the previous instances – including the 1994 Budapest memorandum, in which the Russian government committed to respect Ukraine's borders in return for giving up its former Soviet atomic arms, and the previous peace deals, in which Moscow agreed to a halt in fighting and a return of captured land in the Donbas to Ukrainian control – for what reason should we have confidence in Russia this time?

That is why the Ukrainian government has been so determined on international protection assurances. Although the proposal warns of a "immediate unified defense action" in case Russia renew its aggression, and provides that "Ukraine will receive strong protection assurances", the particulars range from vague to alarming. The plan would not just deny Ukraine alliance membership but also prevent Nato members from stationing troops on the nation's land, thereby preventing the peacekeeping contingent, reportedly headed by the UK and France, on which Ukraine had been counting to deter Putin from rebuilding his weakened military, re-equipping, and resuming aggression.

International Response

Another side agreement according to sources would provide the nation with a Nato-style defense commitment, in which any subsequent "serious, intentional, and sustained aggression" by the Russian Federation on the country "will be treated as an assault threatening the stability and safety of the allied countries." This indicates a defense action. However in contrast to a powerful Ukrainian military – the nation's best defense against future Russian aggression – the effectiveness of the supplementary deal would rely on the willingness of alliance members, including the US administration, to respond with force to Russia's attacks, an action they have {not