🔗 Share this article

For a brief period, Trump gave the impression to take a strong approach on the Ukrainian conflict. After making warnings of "serious consequences" during the summer if Russia's president continued obstructing truce talks, the former president ultimately introduced major restrictions on the Russian two largest energy firms, Lukoil and Rosneft. This move substantially impacted Putin's capacity to fund his war effort in Ukraine.

Yet, with his latest comprehensive peace initiative for the conflict, reportedly developed by both nations' representatives lacking Ukraine's or EU input, Trump has clearly gone back to his favorable to Russia approach.

Benefiting Aggression

This proposal would effectively benefit the Russian leader for occupying a sovereign nation while placing the country's democracy in jeopardy. Despite strong proclamations that "Ukraine's independence will be confirmed", much of the proposal actually undermine that essential sovereignty. This constitutes a Moscow's wish would likely be a disaster for Ukraine.

Reflecting his business experience, the former president persists to treat the Ukrainian conflict as a simple border issue, as if handing Russia a section of Ukrainian soil will appease the president. Yet, Putin's military campaign is not merely about dominating a charred swath of economically weakened area in eastern Ukraine. It is about the nation's democratic governance – and the Russian leader's clear goal to weaken it so it ceases to acts as an appealing standard for the Russian citizens of the responsible governance that his increasing dictatorship denies them.

Border Concessions

Although keeping in position the currently separated regions of these areas, the proposal would force the nation to surrender the whole this eastern territory. Beyond rewarding the Russian Federation with territory that its troops have been unsuccessful to occupy in more than a decade of fighting, this surrender would render Ukraine's defenses severely compromised.

Donetsk is the place of Ukraine's highly-touted "fortress belt", the entrenched military defenses that constitute a key impediment to invading forces. Trump would have the Ukrainian military abandon these defenses, giving Putin a clear path to the capital in case he subsequently opt to renew the hostilities.

Military Limitations

Additionally, in a move that would facilitate additional hostilities simpler for the Russian military, the plan would force the nation to cut the size of its armed forces from their current 800,000 to 850,000 soldiers to a maximum of six hundred thousand. Notably, the plan imposes no such limits on the invading army.

Seemingly as a accommodation to Putin's attempts to portray the nation's chosen by the people administration as extremists, the proposal asserts: "Every extremist ideology and practices must be opposed and banned." Seemingly to underscore this aspect, it requires that "Ukraine will hold political contests in this period" of a ceasefire agreement. Meanwhile, the proposal sets no requirement that Putin endanger his regime by allowing votes in his own country.

Security Guarantees

Admittedly, the proposal includes Russia pledge not to "attack neighboring countries" and to "incorporate in regulation its position of peaceful relations towards European nations and the Ukrainian people". However given that the Russian leadership has broken similar treaties in the past – including the 1994 Budapest memorandum, in which Russia committed to respect Ukraine's sovereignty in return for giving up its historical atomic arms, and the Minsk accords, in which Moscow committed to a truce and a handback of captured areas in eastern Ukraine to Ukrainian control – how should the international community have confidence in Putin on this occasion?

For this reason the Ukrainian government has been so insistent on external defense commitments. While the initiative warns of a "strong unified military response" if Russia resume its invasion, and provides that "Ukraine will receive reliable defense commitments", the details range from fuzzy to alarming. The initiative would not only block Ukraine accession to NATO but also prohibit alliance nations from stationing forces on Ukrainian territory, thus blocking the security presence, likely led by Britain and France, on which Ukraine had been relying to prevent Russia from replenishing his weakened forces, restocking, and reinvading.

World Response

A separate side agreement according to sources would offer the nation with a alliance-like security guarantee, in which any future "serious, intentional, and continuous military assault" by Russia on Ukraine "will be treated as an act of war jeopardizing the peace and security of the Western nations." That suggests a military response. But different from a strong Ukraine's armed forces – the nation's best defense against additional invasion – the effectiveness of the side agreement would depend on the commitment of alliance members, including the US administration, to react through arms to Russia's aggression, an action they have {not