🔗 Share this article

For a brief period, Donald Trump gave the impression to embrace a firm position on Ukraine. Following making statements of "serious repercussions" last August if Russia's president continued hindering truce discussions, he ultimately enacted major sanctions on Russia's primary oil companies, Lukoil and Rosneft. This move substantially hindered Putin's capability to finance his aggression in the region.

But, via his newly presented comprehensive peace proposal for Ukraine, which was drafted by US and Russian representatives without Ukraine's or European participation, the former president has seemingly returned to his favorable to Russia stance.

Benefiting Aggression

Trump's proposal would in practice favor the Russian leader for invading Ukraine while leaving the country's democratic system in danger. Despite ringing declarations that "The nation's sovereignty will be upheld", much of the proposal in reality undermine that very independence. This constitutes a Russian ideal would certainly be a disaster for Ukraine.

Reflecting his real-estate past, the former president persists to treat the war as a basic border issue, implying giving Russia a part of Ukrainian soil will please the ruler. However, Putin's war is not simply about occupying a damaged swath of deindustrialized area in Ukraine's east. It is about Ukraine's political system – and Putin's clear intention to destroy it so it stops acts as an enticing example for the Russian people of the accountable government that his deepening authoritarian rule denies them.

Border Concessions

While freezing in position the currently separated regions of these areas, the proposal would force the nation to give up the entire this eastern territory. Beyond rewarding Russia with area that its troops have been unable to capture in over a lengthy period of warfare, this concession would render Ukraine's military defenses critically weakened.

This region is the place of the nation's highly-touted "fortress belt", the well-established protective structures that represent a critical impediment to enemy progress. Trump would have the Ukrainian military leave these defenses, providing Putin a unobstructed way to Kyiv if he eventually choose to resume the conflict.

Defense Restrictions

Additionally, in a action that would make renewed conflict simpler for the Russian military, the plan would require Ukraine to diminish the numbers of its troops from their present approximately 800,000 soldiers to a maximum of six hundred thousand. Importantly, Trump's plan sets no equivalent constraints on Russia's military.

In what appears as a concession to Russia's efforts to portray Ukraine's legitimate government as extremists, the plan declares: "Every extremist belief system and actions must be condemned and prohibited." Seemingly to highlight this aspect, it requires that "Ukraine will hold elections in three months" of a peace deal. However, Trump places no requirement that Putin jeopardize his authoritarian rule by conducting votes in Russia.

Defense Commitments

To be sure, the proposal has Russia commit not to "enter neighboring countries" and to "incorporate in law its policy of non-aggression towards the EU and Ukraine". But considering that the Russian leadership has broken similar accords in the previous instances – including the Budapest accord, in which Russia committed to respect Ukraine's borders in exchange for relinquishing its Soviet-era nuclear weapons, and the 2014-2015 Minsk agreements, in which Moscow agreed to a truce and a restoration of occupied land in eastern Ukraine to Kyiv – for what reason should we trust this commitment on this occasion?

For this reason the Ukrainian government has been so adamant on international protection assurances. While the proposal promises a "strong joint armed reaction" if Russia renew its invasion, and provides that "The nation will receive dependable defense commitments", the specifics vary from fuzzy to alarming. The proposal would not just prevent the nation accession to NATO but also prevent member states from positioning troops on Ukraine's soil, effectively preventing the reassurance force, likely led by the UK and France, on which Ukraine had been relying to deter Russia from replenishing his weakened forces, re-equipping, and resuming aggression.

International Concern

A separate side agreement according to sources would grant Ukraine with a similar to NATO protection assurance, in which any later "serious, intentional, and continuous aggression" by the Russian Federation on Ukraine "shall be regarded as an act of war jeopardizing the stability and safety of the Western nations." This implies a defense action. Yet in contrast to a capable national defense – Ukraine's most reliable defense against additional Russian aggression – the credibility of the side agreement would rely on the commitment of Western powers, such as the US administration, to respond militarily to Russia's hostilities, something they have {not