🔗 Share this article

At first, Donald Trump seemed to adopt a firm position on the Ukrainian conflict. Following delivering threats of "serious consequences" last August should Vladimir Putin carried on hindering truce talks, he finally introduced substantial sanctions on Russia's two largest energy firms, Rosneft and Lukoil. This move significantly hindered the Russian leader's ability to support his aggression in the region.

However, via his newly presented comprehensive peace proposal for Ukraine, which was drafted by both nations' diplomats without Ukrainian or EU involvement, he has apparently gone back to his favorable to Russia approach.

Benefiting Aggression

The former president's plan would in practice benefit Putin for attacking Ukraine while putting Ukraine's democratic system in peril. Although ringing declarations that "The nation's autonomy will be upheld", large portions of the proposal in reality undermine that essential autonomy. What represents a Moscow's wish would probably be a disaster for Ukraine.

Showing his business background, the former president continues to view the situation in Ukraine as a mere territorial dispute, as if ceding Putin a portion of Ukrainian territory will please the president. Yet, Putin's military campaign is not simply about dominating a destroyed region of economically weakened territory in the Donbas region. Instead, it's about the nation's political system – and Putin's clear intention to destroy it so it no longer serves as an enticing model for the Russia's population of the accountable government that Putin's increasing dictatorship prevents them.

Territorial Surrenders

Although keeping in place the presently divided regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, Trump's proposal would require Ukraine to surrender the whole Donetsk region. Aside from benefiting the Russian Federation with territory that its forces have been unsuccessful to capture in over a decade of conflict, this surrender would render Ukrainian military defenses severely weakened.

Donetsk is the site of the nation's well-known "defensive line", the fortified defensive positions that constitute a essential impediment to invading forces. The proposal would have Ukraine surrender these fortifications, giving Russian forces a open path to the capital in case he subsequently choose to renew the conflict.

Military Restrictions

Furthermore, in a step that would enable future fighting more feasible for Russia, the plan would require the nation to reduce the numbers of its military from their current 800,000 to 850,000 personnel to a limit of six hundred thousand. Significantly, the initiative imposes no equivalent limits on the invading army.

Seemingly as a concession to Russia's campaign to portray Ukraine's democratically elected government as extremists, Trump's proposal asserts: "Any Nazi doctrine and activities must be rejected and prohibited." As if to highlight this point, it requires that "The nation will hold democratic votes in this period" of a ceasefire agreement. At the same time, Trump places no requirement that the Russian leader jeopardize his regime by conducting votes in his own country.

Protection Commitments

To be sure, the proposal makes the Russian Federation promise not to "invade other states" and to "incorporate in legislation its position of peaceful relations towards the EU and the Ukrainian people". Yet considering that the Russian leadership has broken equivalent agreements in the past – for example the Budapest accord, in which Russia pledged to recognize the nation's territorial integrity in return for relinquishing its former Soviet nuclear weapons, and the previous peace deals, in which Moscow agreed to a truce and a return of occupied areas in the Donbas to Ukrainian control – why should anyone have confidence in Russia on this occasion?

This explains the Ukrainian government has been so adamant on international security guarantees. While the proposal promises a "immediate joint military response" if Russia resume its aggression, and includes that "The nation will receive dependable defense commitments", the details range from fuzzy to troubling. The proposal would not only deny Ukraine accession to NATO but also preclude member states from deploying forces on Ukraine's soil, effectively precluding the peacekeeping contingent, reportedly headed by the UK and France, on which the Ukrainian government had been counting to prevent Russia from rebuilding his weakened troops, re-equipping, and resuming aggression.

Global Response

Another side agreement apparently would provide Ukraine with a alliance-like defense commitment, in which any subsequent "major, intentional, and ongoing aggression" by the Russian Federation on the country "would be considered as an attack jeopardizing the tranquility of the transatlantic community." This implies a defense action. However in contrast to a capable Ukrainian military – Ukraine's primary defense against additional hostilities – the effectiveness of the parallel accord would depend on the commitment of Nato leaders, including the US administration, to react through arms to Russia's hostilities, an action they have {not