🔗 Share this article

At first, the former US president gave the impression to adopt a resolute approach regarding Ukraine. After making warnings of "significant repercussions" in August if Russia's president persisted obstructing truce negotiations, the former president finally imposed major sanctions on the Russian two largest oil companies, Lukoil and Rosneft. This action substantially hindered the Russian leader's capacity to fund his military invasion in the region.

Yet, via his newly presented detailed peace proposal for the conflict, which was drafted by both nations' representatives without Ukrainian or EU participation, he has seemingly returned to his Russia-friendly stance.

Favoring Military Action

This plan would essentially reward Putin for attacking Ukraine while placing the country's political freedom in danger. Although bold proclamations that "Ukraine's autonomy will be upheld", large portions of the proposal effectively weaken that very independence. What represents a Kremlin dream would likely be a disaster for Ukraine.

Demonstrating his business background, Trump seems to consider the situation in Ukraine as a basic land disagreement, as if giving Russia a part of Ukraine's land will satisfy the leader. But, Russia's military campaign is not merely about dominating a damaged region of deindustrialized area in the Donbas region. Rather, it is about the nation's democracy – and Putin's obvious desire to eliminate it so it no longer functions as an enticing example for the Russian citizens of the democratic government that Putin's increasing autocracy prevents them.

Land Concessions

Although maintaining in place the already divided regions of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, Trump's plan would require the nation to give up the whole Donetsk province. Aside from rewarding the Russian Federation with land that its military have been unsuccessful to capture in over a decade of conflict, this giveaway would make Ukraine's military defenses dangerously compromised.

This region is the location of the nation's highly-touted "defensive line", the fortified protective structures that represent a essential barrier to Russian advances. The proposal would have the Ukrainian military leave these fortifications, leaving Putin a unobstructed path to Kyiv in case he later choose to resume the hostilities.

Defense Reductions

Additionally, in a step that would make future conflict easier for the Russian military, Trump would force Ukraine to cut the scale of its military from their current approximately 800,000 soldiers to a maximum of six hundred thousand. Importantly, the initiative sets no similar limits on Russian forces.

In what appears as a gesture to Putin's efforts to depict the nation's legitimate administration as extremists, Trump's plan declares: "Every Nazi doctrine and practices must be condemned and forbidden." As if to underscore this element, it demands that "The nation will hold political contests in 100 days" of a truce. At the same time, the proposal sets no obligation that Putin jeopardize his authoritarian rule by allowing votes in Russia.

Defense Commitments

To be sure, the initiative has Russia commit not to "invade other states" and to "enshrine in legislation its stance of peaceful relations towards the EU and Ukraine". But taking into account that Putin has breached similar accords in the history – for example the 1994 Budapest memorandum, in which Russia promised to honor Ukraine's borders in exchange for giving up its former Soviet nuclear arsenal, and the 2014-2015 Minsk agreements, in which Russia promised to a truce and a return of captured areas in eastern Ukraine to Ukrainian control – how should we trust this commitment on this occasion?

That is why the Ukrainian government has been so adamant on international protection assurances. Although the proposal promises a "strong joint armed reaction" should the Russian Federation resume its military campaign, and provides that "The nation will receive dependable security guarantees", the particulars include unclear to troubling. The initiative would not only prevent the nation accession to NATO but also prohibit Nato members from positioning troops on Ukraine's soil, thereby blocking the security presence, presumptively commanded by the UK and France, on which the Ukrainian government had been depending to deter Putin from restoring his weakened forces, re-equipping, and reinvading.

Global Response

A separate parallel deal reportedly would offer the nation with a similar to NATO protection assurance, in which any future "major, deliberate, and sustained military assault" by Russia on the country "would be considered as an attack jeopardizing the tranquility of the transatlantic community." This indicates a defense action. But in contrast to a capable Ukrainian military – Ukraine's best defense against future hostilities – the success of the parallel accord would hinge on the willingness of Nato leaders, such as the US administration, to respond through arms to Russia's aggression, something they have {not