🔗 Share this article

At first, Donald Trump seemed to adopt a firm approach on Ukraine. Following delivering threats of "significant consequences" during the summer should Vladimir Putin persisted obstructing truce negotiations, Trump finally introduced major penalties on Russia's two largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil. This decision seriously hindered the Russian leader's ability to finance his aggression in the region.

Yet, with his recently unveiled detailed peace plan for Ukraine, that was created by American and Russian diplomats excluding Ukraine's or European participation, he has clearly returned to his pro-Putin position.

Rewarding Aggression

The former president's proposal would effectively favor the Russian leader for attacking Ukraine while putting Ukraine's political freedom in danger. Despite bold proclamations that "The nation's independence will be affirmed", significant aspects of the proposal effectively weaken that same autonomy. Seen as a Moscow's wish would certainly be a disaster for Ukraine.

Demonstrating his corporate experience, Trump seems to view the war as a mere border issue, implying giving Putin a portion of Ukrainian land will appease the leader. Yet, Russia's war is not only about dominating a damaged area of economically weakened land in eastern Ukraine. It is about Ukraine's political system – and the Russian leader's apparent goal to destroy it so it no longer serves as an appealing model for the Russian citizens of the accountable leadership that Putin's growing authoritarian rule denies them.

Border Concessions

While maintaining in status the currently split oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, Trump's proposal would force Ukraine to abandon all of this eastern territory. Aside from favoring the Russian Federation with territory that its troops have been unable to seize in exceeding a ten years of fighting, this concession would render Ukrainian defenses dangerously compromised.

The area is the place of Ukraine's well-known "fortress belt", the fortified protective structures that constitute a key obstacle to invading forces. The proposal would have the Ukrainian military abandon these positions, leaving Russian forces a open way to Kyiv if he eventually decide to restart the war.

Military Restrictions

Additionally, in a move that would make additional hostilities simpler for the Russian military, the plan would require the nation to cut the scale of its troops from their present 800,000 to 850,000 soldiers to a maximum of six hundred thousand. Notably, the initiative sets no similar constraints on Russian forces.

Seemingly as a accommodation to Russia's efforts to portray Ukraine's democratically elected government as radicals, the plan states: "Every radical doctrine and actions must be opposed and forbidden." As if to emphasize this element, it requires that "Ukraine will hold political contests in 100 days" of a truce. However, Trump imposes no requirement that Putin endanger his dictatorship by allowing votes in Russia.

Defense Guarantees

To be sure, the plan makes Russia commit not to "attack neighboring countries" and to "enshrine in law its policy of peaceful relations towards European nations and the Ukrainian people". But taking into account that Putin has breached equivalent agreements in the previous instances – for example the 1994 agreement, in which Russia committed to recognize Ukraine's borders in return for giving up its historical atomic arms, and the Minsk accords, in which Moscow agreed to a ceasefire and a handback of seized areas in eastern Ukraine to Kyiv – how should we have confidence in this commitment on this occasion?

For this reason the Ukrainian government has been so determined on external defense commitments. Although the proposal threatens a "immediate unified defense action" in case Russia restart its invasion, and includes that "The nation will receive reliable defense commitments", the particulars range from fuzzy to troubling. The plan would not only prevent the nation alliance membership but also prohibit Nato members from positioning troops on Ukrainian territory, thereby preventing the peacekeeping contingent, likely headed by the UK and France, on which the Ukrainian government had been depending to stop Putin from restoring his weakened troops, re-equipping, and resuming aggression.

World Reaction

An additional supplementary accord reportedly would offer the nation with a similar to NATO protection assurance, in which any future "serious, intentional, and continuous armed attack" by Russia on the country "will be treated as an attack endangering the tranquility of the allied countries." That suggests a military response. But in contrast to a strong Ukraine's armed forces – the nation's most reliable protection against future hostilities – the success of the supplementary deal would rely on the willingness of alliance members, like the US administration, to act militarily to Russia's hostilities, something they have {not