🔗 Share this article

For a brief period, Trump seemed to take a strong approach concerning the Ukrainian conflict. After delivering warnings of "serious ramifications" during the summer if Vladimir Putin persisted obstructing ceasefire negotiations, Trump eventually enacted major sanctions on Russia's biggest petroleum corporations, Rosneft and Lukoil. This move significantly affected Putin's capability to fund his military invasion in Ukraine.

But, through his newly presented detailed peace initiative for Ukraine, that was drafted by US and Russian officials excluding Ukraine's or European participation, he has apparently gone back to his favorable to Russia approach.

Rewarding Military Action

This initiative would effectively favor Putin for invading Ukraine while leaving Ukraine's democracy in jeopardy. Despite ringing declarations that "Ukraine's independence will be upheld", significant aspects of the proposal in reality compromise that essential autonomy. This constitutes a Kremlin dream would certainly be a disaster for Ukraine.

Showing his corporate past, the former president persists to treat the war as a simple border issue, as if giving Putin a portion of Ukraine's land will appease the leader. But, Putin's invasion is not simply about controlling a charred region of deindustrialized territory in the Donbas region. It is about the nation's democracy – and Putin's clear intention to eliminate it so it no longer acts as an enticing model for the Russian people of the responsible government that his growing dictatorship denies them.

Territorial Giveaways

While freezing in status the already split regions of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, the plan would compel the nation to give up all of Donetsk region. Aside from benefiting Russia with area that its forces have been unsuccessful to occupy in over a lengthy period of warfare, this concession would make Ukraine's defensive positions dangerously weakened.

This region is the location of Ukraine's highly-touted "fortress belt", the entrenched military defenses that are a critical obstacle to invading forces. Trump would have the Ukrainian military leave these fortifications, providing Putin a open way to the capital should he subsequently opt to resume the conflict.

Military Restrictions

Furthermore, in a action that would enable renewed conflict simpler for Russia, the plan would mandate Ukraine to cut the size of its troops from their present approximately 800,000 personnel to a maximum of six hundred thousand. Importantly, Trump's proposal imposes no similar constraints on Russia's military.

Seemingly as a concession to Putin's campaign to depict the nation's democratically elected government as extremists, Trump's proposal declares: "Any radical doctrine and practices must be opposed and forbidden." Seemingly to emphasize this point, it demands that "Ukraine will hold democratic votes in three months" of a peace deal. At the same time, the proposal sets no obligation that Putin endanger his dictatorship by conducting elections in his own country.

Protection Assurances

To be sure, the initiative has the Russian Federation pledge not to "attack bordering nations" and to "incorporate in law its stance of non-aggression towards European nations and Ukraine". However given that Putin has violated equivalent agreements in the previous instances – including the 1994 agreement, in which the Russian government promised to respect the nation's sovereignty in return for surrendering its historical nuclear arsenal, and the 2014-2015 Minsk agreements, in which Moscow agreed to a halt in fighting and a restoration of captured land in eastern Ukraine to the government – for what reason should we have confidence in this commitment this time?

For this reason Ukraine has been so determined on western security guarantees. Although the initiative threatens a "immediate unified military response" in case the Russian Federation resume its invasion, and provides that "The nation will receive dependable security guarantees", the specifics range from vague to troubling. The initiative would not just deny the nation alliance membership but also preclude alliance nations from stationing troops on Ukraine's soil, thereby blocking the security presence, reportedly commanded by Britain and France, on which Ukraine had been counting to stop Russia from rebuilding his diminished forces, rearming, and resuming aggression.

International Response

An additional parallel deal reportedly would offer Ukraine with a alliance-like security guarantee, in which any later "major, intentional, and ongoing aggression" by Russia on Ukraine "will be treated as an assault endangering the tranquility of the allied countries." This implies a armed reaction. However different from a powerful Ukraine's armed forces – Ukraine's best protection against renewed hostilities – the credibility of the supplementary deal would rely on the dedication of Western powers, including the US administration, to act through arms to Russia's attacks, a response they have {not