🔗 Share this article

At first, Trump seemed to adopt a strong approach concerning Ukraine. Following delivering threats of "severe repercussions" last August if Russia's president persisted obstructing truce talks, Trump finally enacted considerable restrictions on the Russian biggest energy firms, Lukoil and Rosneft. This decision substantially impacted the Russian leader's capability to support his war effort in Ukraine.

But, via his recently unveiled 28-point peace plan for the conflict, which was created by US and Russian representatives without Ukrainian or European involvement, Trump has seemingly gone back to his favorable to Russia approach.

Benefiting Aggression

Trump's plan would effectively reward the Russian leader for attacking a sovereign nation while placing Ukraine's political freedom in jeopardy. Despite bold declarations that "Ukraine's autonomy will be affirmed", much of the plan in reality undermine that essential autonomy. What represents a Russian ideal would probably be a disaster for Ukraine.

Showing his real-estate experience, the former president seems to view the situation in Ukraine as a mere territorial dispute, like ceding Russia a section of Ukraine's soil will appease the ruler. However, Putin's invasion is not merely about occupying a damaged area of deindustrialized land in eastern Ukraine. It is about Ukraine's democratic governance – and Putin's clear intention to eliminate it so it stops serves as an enticing model for the Russian citizens of the accountable government that his increasing authoritarian rule withholds them.

Border Giveaways

While keeping in place the currently separated oblasts of these areas, Trump's proposal would require Ukraine to abandon the entire Donetsk province. In addition to benefiting Russia with land that its troops have been failed to seize in more than a ten years of fighting, this giveaway would render Ukrainian defenses severely undermined.

The area is the place of the nation's highly-touted "stronghold system", the well-established military defenses that constitute a essential impediment to enemy progress. Trump would have the Ukrainian military abandon these fortifications, providing Russian forces a open way to Kyiv in case he later decide to resume the war.

Military Restrictions

Furthermore, in a move that would enable additional fighting more feasible for Russia, the plan would mandate Ukraine to reduce the size of its troops from their existing large number personnel to a limit of six hundred thousand. Importantly, the plan imposes no such constraints on Russia's military.

Seemingly as a concession to Putin's efforts to characterize the nation's legitimate leadership as extremists, Trump's plan declares: "Every Nazi belief system and activities must be opposed and banned." Apparently to underscore this point, it insists that "The nation will hold elections in three months" of a peace deal. At the same time, the proposal imposes no condition that the Russian leader endanger his regime by holding elections in Russia.

Defense Assurances

To be sure, the proposal includes the Russian Federation pledge not to "attack neighboring countries" and to "establish in law its policy of non-violence towards European nations and the Ukrainian people". But taking into account that Putin has broken similar treaties in the history – such as the Budapest accord, in which Russia promised to recognize the nation's territorial integrity in return for surrendering its historical nuclear arsenal, and the Minsk accords, in which Russia promised to a truce and a restoration of captured land in the Donbas to Ukrainian control – for what reason should the international community have confidence in Russia now?

For this reason Ukraine has been so insistent on western protection assurances. Although the initiative warns of a "immediate joint defense action" if Russia restart its military campaign, and states that "Ukraine will receive dependable security guarantees", the particulars vary from vague to concerning. The plan would not just prevent Ukraine accession to NATO but also preclude Nato members from positioning troops on Ukraine's soil, thus preventing the reassurance force, reportedly headed by Britain and France, on which the Ukrainian government had been relying to deter Putin from rebuilding his diminished troops, restocking, and attacking again.

World Response

A separate side agreement reportedly would provide Ukraine with a alliance-like security guarantee, in which any subsequent "serious, planned, and ongoing armed attack" by Russia on the country "will be treated as an attack endangering the peace and security of the transatlantic community." This indicates a defense action. However in contrast to a capable Ukrainian military – Ukraine's best defense against future invasion – the effectiveness of the side agreement would rely on the willingness of alliance members, like the US administration, to act militarily to Putin's hostilities, an action they have {not