🔗 Share this article

At first, Donald Trump seemed to embrace a resolute approach concerning the Ukrainian conflict. After delivering statements of "severe ramifications" in August if Putin carried on hindering truce discussions, the former president ultimately enacted substantial restrictions on the Russian biggest petroleum corporations, Rosneft and Lukoil. This move seriously impacted Putin's capability to finance his war effort in Ukraine.

But, with his newly presented comprehensive peace plan for Ukraine, reportedly developed by US and Russian diplomats without Ukraine's or European involvement, Trump has clearly reverted to his pro-Putin position.

Favoring Aggression

The former president's plan would essentially favor Putin for occupying a sovereign nation while placing Ukraine's political freedom in peril. Despite bold statements that "Ukraine's sovereignty will be affirmed", large portions of the initiative in reality weaken that essential autonomy. What represents a Russian ideal would likely be a catastrophe for the nation.

Showing his business past, Trump continues to consider the situation in Ukraine as a mere territorial dispute, as if giving Putin a section of Ukrainian territory will satisfy the president. However, Russia's invasion is not merely about controlling a damaged region of deindustrialized territory in Ukraine's east. It is about Ukraine's democracy – and the Russian leader's obvious intention to destroy it so it no longer serves as an appealing example for the Russian people of the accountable governance that his increasing dictatorship denies them.

Territorial Concessions

Although freezing in position the currently separated Ukrainian provinces of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, Trump's plan would force the nation to surrender all of Donetsk region. In addition to favoring Russia with area that its troops have been failed to occupy in over a lengthy period of fighting, this giveaway would leave Ukraine's defenses critically undermined.

The area is the site of the nation's much-vaunted "fortress belt", the entrenched protective structures that are a critical impediment to invading forces. Trump would have the Ukrainian military leave these positions, providing Putin a open route to Kyiv in case he eventually decide to resume the hostilities.

Military Reductions

Then, in a step that would enable additional hostilities simpler for Russia, Trump would mandate the nation to cut the size of its troops from their existing 800,000 to 850,000 soldiers to a cap of 600,000. Importantly, the initiative places no similar restrictions on Russian forces.

Seemingly as a gesture to Putin's campaign to characterize Ukraine's democratically elected government as radicals, the proposal states: "Any radical belief system and actions must be opposed and banned." Seemingly to underscore this aspect, it demands that "The nation will hold political contests in 100 days" of a peace deal. Meanwhile, Trump places no obligation that Putin endanger his regime by holding elections in Russia.

Protection Assurances

Certainly, the plan includes the Russian Federation commit not to "invade neighboring countries" and to "establish in law its position of peaceful relations towards Europe and Ukraine". Yet taking into account that the Russian leadership has violated comparable agreements in the previous instances – including the Budapest accord, in which Russia pledged to respect the nation's sovereignty in exchange for giving up its Soviet-era nuclear weapons, and the previous peace deals, in which Russia promised to a truce and a return of captured territory in the Donbas to Kyiv – why should we trust this commitment now?

This explains the Ukrainian government has been so determined on international protection assurances. Although the proposal promises a "strong coordinated armed reaction" if the Russian Federation restart its invasion, and includes that "Ukraine will receive dependable defense commitments", the details range from unclear to alarming. The initiative would not just prevent the nation alliance membership but also prevent Nato members from stationing military personnel on Ukraine's soil, effectively precluding the security presence, likely led by the UK and France, on which Ukraine had been counting to stop Russia from rebuilding his reduced troops, re-equipping, and resuming aggression.

International Response

Another supplementary accord apparently would grant the nation with a similar to NATO security guarantee, in which any subsequent "serious, deliberate, and sustained military assault" by the Russian Federation on Ukraine "shall be regarded as an act of war endangering the tranquility of the transatlantic community." This indicates a defense action. However unlike a strong Ukrainian military – the nation's most reliable deterrent against additional invasion – the credibility of the side agreement would hinge on the willingness of Nato leaders, like the US administration, to respond with force to Putin's hostilities, a response they have {not