🔗 Share this article

At first, Donald Trump appeared to take a firm approach concerning the Ukrainian conflict. After delivering threats of "significant repercussions" in August if Russia's president continued obstructing truce negotiations, he ultimately introduced major restrictions on the Russian biggest energy firms, Lukoil and Rosneft. This action seriously impacted the Russian leader's capacity to fund his war effort in the region.

Yet, with his newly presented comprehensive peace proposal for the conflict, which was created by US and Russian diplomats lacking Ukrainian or European involvement, he has clearly gone back to his pro-Putin approach.

Rewarding Aggression

The former president's plan would effectively reward Putin for invading a sovereign nation while putting the country's democracy in danger. Despite ringing statements that "The nation's autonomy will be affirmed", significant aspects of the plan actually undermine that same sovereignty. Seen as a Kremlin dream would probably be a catastrophe for the nation.

Showing his business background, Trump seems to treat the Ukrainian conflict as a simple land disagreement, implying giving Russia a section of Ukrainian soil will appease the leader. However, Putin's invasion is not simply about occupying a charred swath of industrial-devastated territory in Ukraine's east. It is about Ukraine's democratic governance – and the Russian leader's apparent goal to eliminate it so it no longer serves as an appealing standard for the Russian people of the democratic governance that Putin's deepening dictatorship withholds them.

Land Surrenders

While maintaining in position the already separated regions of these areas, Trump's proposal would require the nation to give up all of Donetsk region. In addition to favoring Russia with territory that its troops have been unsuccessful to seize in more than a ten years of conflict, this concession would render Ukrainian defenses dangerously compromised.

The area is the location of the nation's well-known "fortress belt", the fortified defensive positions that represent a key barrier to invading forces. The proposal would have Ukraine leave these defenses, providing Russian forces a unobstructed path to Kyiv if he later decide to restart the hostilities.

Military Limitations

Then, in a step that would enable renewed conflict simpler for Russia, Trump would mandate the nation to reduce the numbers of its armed forces from their existing approximately 800,000 troops to a limit of six hundred thousand. Notably, the initiative sets no equivalent constraints on the invading army.

Apparently as a gesture to Russia's attempts to portray the nation's democratically elected leadership as extremists, Trump's plan asserts: "All radical doctrine and activities must be opposed and prohibited." As if to highlight this element, it requires that "The nation will hold democratic votes in this period" of a ceasefire agreement. At the same time, Trump places no obligation that the Russian leader risk his authoritarian rule by allowing democratic processes in his own country.

Security Commitments

Admittedly, the proposal includes Russia pledge not to "invade other states" and to "enshrine in law its position of non-violence towards the EU and Ukraine". Yet considering that Putin has breached comparable treaties in the past – such as the 1994 Budapest memorandum, in which Russia pledged to recognize Ukraine's borders in exchange for surrendering its historical nuclear weapons, and the Minsk accords, in which Moscow committed to a truce and a restoration of captured land in the region to Ukrainian control – for what reason should the international community have confidence in Putin on this occasion?

For this reason the Ukrainian government has been so adamant on international defense commitments. Although the initiative promises a "immediate joint defense action" should the Russian Federation restart its invasion, and states that "The nation will receive dependable protection assurances", the details vary from unclear to concerning. The initiative would not only deny Ukraine accession to NATO but also prevent Nato members from positioning forces on Ukraine's soil, thereby blocking the reassurance force, likely led by the UK and France, on which Ukraine had been counting to stop Putin from rebuilding his diminished military, re-equipping, and resuming aggression.

World Reaction

A separate side agreement apparently would provide Ukraine with a similar to NATO security guarantee, in which any subsequent "major, intentional, and sustained aggression" by Russia on Ukraine "will be treated as an assault jeopardizing the peace and security of the allied countries." This implies a armed reaction. Yet unlike a powerful Ukrainian military – Ukraine's most reliable defense against additional Russian aggression – the success of the parallel accord would hinge on the willingness of Nato leaders, including the US administration, to act through arms to Russia's hostilities, something they have {not