🔗 Share this article

For a brief period, Donald Trump gave the impression to take a strong stance on the Ukrainian conflict. After issuing statements of "severe repercussions" during the summer if Putin carried on hindering truce negotiations, Trump eventually introduced major penalties on the Russian biggest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil. This move significantly impacted the Russian leader's capability to finance his war effort in Ukraine.

Yet, through his newly presented detailed peace initiative for Ukraine, reportedly developed by American and Russian representatives lacking Ukraine's or EU involvement, he has seemingly gone back to his favorable to Russia approach.

Favoring Invasion

Trump's plan would in practice favor the Russian leader for attacking Ukraine while placing the country's democratic system in jeopardy. Despite ringing declarations that "The nation's autonomy will be confirmed", significant aspects of the proposal effectively compromise that very independence. This constitutes a Moscow's wish would probably be a catastrophe for the nation.

Reflecting his corporate experience, Trump seems to view the Ukrainian conflict as a simple land disagreement, implying giving Putin a section of Ukraine's land will satisfy the leader. However, Russia's war is not merely about controlling a charred swath of industrial-devastated territory in eastern Ukraine. Rather, it is about Ukraine's democratic governance – and Putin's clear intention to destroy it so it stops serves as an appealing example for the Russian citizens of the accountable governance that his growing autocracy prevents them.

Territorial Surrenders

While freezing in status the presently separated oblasts of these areas, Trump's initiative would force the nation to abandon the whole Donetsk region. Beyond rewarding Russia with territory that its military have been unsuccessful to seize in exceeding a lengthy period of fighting, this giveaway would leave Ukrainian defensive positions severely weakened.

Donetsk is the location of Ukraine's much-vaunted "defensive line", the fortified defensive positions that constitute a critical barrier to invading forces. The proposal would have Ukraine surrender these positions, providing Putin a unobstructed way to the capital if he eventually opt to restart the conflict.

Military Reductions

Then, in a step that would enable renewed hostilities easier for Russia, Trump would force Ukraine to reduce the size of its troops from their current approximately 800,000 soldiers to a cap of 600,000. Significantly, the initiative sets no equivalent constraints on Russia's military.

Seemingly as a gesture to Russia's campaign to depict Ukraine's legitimate government as radicals, the plan asserts: "All radical belief system and actions must be opposed and forbidden." Seemingly to underscore this point, it demands that "The nation will hold political contests in three months" of a peace deal. At the same time, the proposal sets no obligation that Putin jeopardize his dictatorship by allowing elections in Russia.

Security Guarantees

Admittedly, the proposal has Russia promise not to "invade bordering nations" and to "incorporate in legislation its stance of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine". But considering that the Russian leadership has broken similar accords in the past – for example the Budapest accord, in which Russia pledged to respect the nation's borders in return for relinquishing its Soviet-era atomic arms, and the Minsk accords, in which Moscow committed to a truce and a restoration of occupied territory in the region to the government – how should anyone trust Putin on this occasion?

That is why the Ukrainian government has been so determined on international security guarantees. While the initiative warns of a "strong coordinated armed reaction" should Russia resume its invasion, and provides that "The nation will receive strong defense commitments", the particulars vary from unclear to troubling. The proposal would not just deny Ukraine Nato membership but also preclude Nato members from stationing troops on Ukrainian territory, thereby blocking the reassurance force, presumptively headed by Britain and France, on which Ukraine had been relying to prevent Russia from restoring his weakened forces, rearming, and resuming aggression.

World Response

An additional supplementary accord apparently would grant the nation with a alliance-like security guarantee, in which any later "significant, planned, and sustained armed attack" by the Russian Federation on Ukraine "will be treated as an assault endangering the stability and safety of the transatlantic community." That suggests a armed reaction. Yet unlike a capable Ukraine's armed forces – the nation's primary defense against additional invasion – the credibility of the side agreement would hinge on the dedication of alliance members, including the US administration, to respond with force to Russia's hostilities, a response they have {not