🔗 Share this article

For a brief period, Donald Trump appeared to adopt a strong stance on the Ukrainian conflict. Following making threats of "significant consequences" in August should Putin persisted blocking truce negotiations, Trump finally introduced considerable penalties on the Russian biggest energy firms, Lukoil and Rosneft. This decision substantially hindered the Russian leader's capacity to finance his military invasion in the region.

Yet, through his recently unveiled 28-point peace initiative for the conflict, reportedly created by US and Russian diplomats excluding Ukraine's or European input, he has seemingly gone back to his pro-Putin position.

Favoring Military Action

This proposal would effectively benefit the Russian leader for occupying Ukraine while leaving the country's democracy in jeopardy. Although strong proclamations that "The nation's sovereignty will be confirmed", much of the proposal in reality weaken that same sovereignty. This constitutes a Kremlin dream would probably be a Ukrainian nightmare.

Demonstrating his real-estate experience, Trump continues to treat the war as a mere border issue, implying giving Putin a section of Ukrainian territory will satisfy the leader. Yet, Putin's military campaign is not only about dominating a charred area of economically weakened land in Ukraine's east. Rather, it is about Ukraine's democracy – and Putin's apparent desire to destroy it so it no longer serves as an enticing standard for the Russian people of the democratic government that Putin's deepening autocracy denies them.

Land Giveaways

Although freezing in status the presently divided regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the plan would require the nation to give up all of Donetsk province. Aside from rewarding Russia with land that its forces have been unable to capture in over a ten years of fighting, this concession would render Ukrainian defensive positions critically undermined.

This region is the location of the nation's much-vaunted "fortress belt", the entrenched defensive positions that constitute a critical barrier to enemy progress. Trump would have Ukraine surrender these positions, leaving Russian forces a unobstructed path to Kyiv if he eventually choose to restart the conflict.

Defense Restrictions

Furthermore, in a step that would make additional fighting easier for Russia, Trump would force Ukraine to diminish the numbers of its military from their existing large number troops to a cap of 600,000. Significantly, Trump's proposal imposes no similar constraints on Russian forces.

In what appears as a gesture to Putin's efforts to depict the nation's chosen by the people leadership as radicals, Trump's plan declares: "All extremist ideology and practices must be rejected and forbidden." Seemingly to underscore this point, it requires that "The nation will hold elections in three months" of a truce. At the same time, Trump sets no requirement that the Russian leader risk his dictatorship by holding elections in his own country.

Security Guarantees

To be sure, the proposal makes the Russian Federation commit not to "invade bordering nations" and to "incorporate in regulation its stance of non-aggression towards European nations and the Ukrainian people". However given that the Russian leadership has breached similar agreements in the previous instances – for example the Budapest accord, in which Russia pledged to honor the nation's sovereignty in exchange for giving up its former Soviet atomic arms, and the Minsk accords, in which Russia agreed to a truce and a return of captured areas in the Donbas to the government – for what reason should anyone trust Putin on this occasion?

This explains the Ukrainian government has been so determined on external protection assurances. Although the plan threatens a "strong joint military response" if Russia restart its military campaign, and states that "Ukraine will receive strong protection assurances", the particulars vary from unclear to troubling. The plan would not only prevent Ukraine alliance membership but also prevent Nato members from deploying forces on the nation's land, thus precluding the security presence, presumptively headed by Britain and France, on which Ukraine had been depending to prevent Putin from restoring his diminished forces, restocking, and reinvading.

Global Reaction

A separate supplementary accord reportedly would grant Ukraine with a Nato-style defense commitment, in which any later "major, intentional, and sustained military assault" by Russia on the country "shall be regarded as an assault threatening the stability and safety of the Western nations." That suggests a military response. However different from a powerful national defense – Ukraine's best deterrent against future invasion – the credibility of the side agreement would rely on the dedication of Nato leaders, such as the US administration, to act with force to Russia's hostilities, something they have {not