Donald Trump's Ukrainian Peace Initiative Represents a Gift to Russia's Leader

At first, Donald Trump appeared to take a resolute approach regarding the Ukrainian conflict. After delivering warnings of "significant consequences" last August should Russia's president carried on hindering ceasefire discussions, the former president finally imposed major sanctions on Russia's biggest petroleum corporations, Rosneft and Lukoil. This decision seriously affected the Russian leader's capability to fund his war effort in the region.

However, through his newly presented detailed peace initiative for the conflict, reportedly drafted by US and Russian representatives lacking Ukraine's or EU participation, Trump has clearly reverted to his Russia-friendly stance.

Favoring Aggression

Trump's initiative would in practice benefit the Russian leader for occupying a sovereign nation while placing Ukraine's democratic system in jeopardy. Despite bold declarations that "The nation's sovereignty will be confirmed", much of the proposal effectively undermine that very independence. This constitutes a Russian ideal would likely be a Ukrainian nightmare.

Reflecting his business past, Trump continues to view the war as a basic territorial dispute, implying giving Putin a part of Ukraine's land will please the ruler. However, Putin's war is not simply about controlling a damaged area of economically weakened territory in Ukraine's east. Instead, it's about the nation's political system – and the Russian leader's obvious desire to destroy it so it stops serves as an appealing standard for the Russia's population of the accountable governance that his deepening autocracy prevents them.

Land Giveaways

While freezing in position the presently split Ukrainian provinces of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the initiative would require the nation to surrender all of Donetsk province. Aside from favoring the Russian Federation with territory that its troops have been failed to capture in exceeding a ten years of conflict, this surrender would render Ukrainian defensive positions dangerously compromised.

This region is the place of Ukraine's much-vaunted "stronghold system", the entrenched protective structures that represent a critical impediment to Russian advances. The proposal would have Ukraine leave these positions, leaving Russian forces a open route to Kyiv in case he eventually opt to renew the war.

Armed Forces Limitations

Furthermore, in a step that would facilitate future fighting simpler for the Russian military, the plan would force the nation to reduce the scale of its military from their present 800,000 to 850,000 troops to a maximum of this lower number. Importantly, Trump's plan imposes no similar restrictions on Russian forces.

In what appears as a accommodation to Putin's attempts to depict Ukraine's legitimate administration as Nazis, the proposal asserts: "Any radical ideology and practices must be rejected and banned." Apparently to underscore this aspect, it demands that "The nation will hold democratic votes in 100 days" of a ceasefire agreement. At the same time, Trump places no obligation that the Russian leader endanger his dictatorship by allowing elections in his own country.

Security Assurances

To be sure, the proposal includes Russia commit not to "enter other states" and to "incorporate in legislation its position of peaceful relations towards the EU and the Ukrainian people". But given that the Russian leadership has breached equivalent accords in the previous instances – for example the Budapest accord, in which the Russian government committed to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for surrendering its former Soviet nuclear weapons, and the 2014-2015 Minsk agreements, in which Moscow promised to a halt in fighting and a handback of occupied territory in the region to the government – for what reason should the international community trust this commitment this time?

For this reason Ukraine has been so adamant on international security guarantees. While the initiative threatens a "immediate coordinated armed reaction" if the Russian Federation restart its invasion, and states that "Ukraine will receive reliable defense commitments", the particulars vary from fuzzy to concerning. The initiative would not just prevent Ukraine accession to NATO but also prohibit alliance nations from stationing military personnel on the nation's land, effectively precluding the reassurance force, reportedly headed by Britain and France, on which Ukraine had been counting to deter Russia from replenishing his reduced military, re-equipping, and attacking again.

Global Response

An additional side agreement reportedly would offer Ukraine with a similar to NATO defense commitment, in which any future "major, planned, and ongoing military assault" by Russia on Ukraine "shall be regarded as an attack endangering the stability and safety of the transatlantic community." That suggests a armed reaction. Yet unlike a strong Ukraine's armed forces – Ukraine's primary defense against renewed invasion – the credibility of the side agreement would depend on the dedication of Nato leaders, such as Trump, to react through arms to Russia's attacks, an action they have {not