🔗 Share this article

At first, Trump seemed to take a firm position regarding the Ukrainian conflict. Following delivering threats of "serious ramifications" in August in case Russia's president carried on hindering peace negotiations, the former president eventually imposed major restrictions on the Russian primary oil companies, Lukoil and Rosneft. This action seriously impacted Putin's capability to finance his aggression in the region.

Yet, through his newly presented comprehensive peace plan for Ukraine, that was created by American and Russian representatives excluding Ukraine's or EU participation, the former president has seemingly gone back to his favorable to Russia position.

Benefiting Military Action

Trump's initiative would in practice reward the Russian leader for invading a sovereign nation while leaving Ukraine's democracy in danger. Despite strong declarations that "Ukraine's autonomy will be confirmed", significant aspects of the initiative actually weaken that same sovereignty. This constitutes a Russian ideal would probably be a catastrophe for the nation.

Showing his corporate background, the former president seems to treat the Ukrainian conflict as a mere land disagreement, like giving Russia a section of Ukraine's soil will satisfy the leader. However, Russia's invasion is not only about dominating a destroyed swath of industrial-devastated area in the Donbas region. Rather, it is about the nation's democracy – and the Russian leader's clear desire to weaken it so it ceases to functions as an attractive model for the Russian citizens of the responsible leadership that Putin's increasing dictatorship denies them.

Land Concessions

While keeping in position the already divided Ukrainian provinces of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the initiative would force Ukraine to give up the whole Donetsk region. In addition to benefiting the Russian Federation with territory that its military have been unsuccessful to capture in over a ten years of fighting, this surrender would leave Ukraine's defensive positions severely undermined.

This region is the site of the nation's well-known "defensive line", the entrenched military defenses that constitute a essential impediment to Russian advances. The proposal would have Ukraine leave these positions, giving Putin a open way to the capital if he subsequently opt to renew the conflict.

Military Reductions

Furthermore, in a step that would make renewed fighting more feasible for Russia, Trump would force Ukraine to cut the size of its military from their present approximately 800,000 personnel to a limit of this lower number. Significantly, the proposal sets no equivalent constraints on the invading army.

Seemingly as a accommodation to Putin's attempts to depict the nation's legitimate government as Nazis, the plan asserts: "Any radical ideology and activities must be opposed and prohibited." Apparently to highlight this aspect, it demands that "The nation will hold political contests in 100 days" of a truce. At the same time, Trump sets no obligation that Putin jeopardize his dictatorship by holding democratic processes in Russia.

Security Guarantees

To be sure, the proposal includes Russia promise not to "attack other states" and to "establish in legislation its stance of non-aggression towards the EU and the Ukrainian people". But considering that Putin has broken comparable agreements in the previous instances – including the Budapest accord, in which the Russian government promised to respect the nation's territorial integrity in return for surrendering its historical nuclear weapons, and the 2014-2015 Minsk agreements, in which Russia promised to a halt in fighting and a return of seized territory in eastern Ukraine to the government – for what reason should we trust Russia on this occasion?

That is why the Ukrainian government has been so insistent on international security guarantees. Although the initiative promises a "immediate joint military response" should Russia renew its military campaign, and includes that "The nation will receive strong protection assurances", the details include unclear to alarming. The plan would not only prevent Ukraine Nato membership but also prohibit alliance nations from stationing military personnel on Ukraine's soil, thus blocking the security presence, reportedly led by Britain and France, on which Ukraine had been relying to prevent Russia from rebuilding his reduced troops, re-equipping, and attacking again.

International Reaction

Another side agreement reportedly would offer Ukraine with a alliance-like security guarantee, in which any later "significant, intentional, and ongoing armed attack" by Russia on the country "will be treated as an assault threatening the tranquility of the allied countries." That suggests a armed reaction. However different from a powerful Ukraine's armed forces – the nation's most reliable deterrent against additional Russian aggression – the effectiveness of the side agreement would rely on the willingness of Nato leaders, including the US administration, to react through arms to Russia's hostilities, an action they have {not