🔗 Share this article

Initially, Donald Trump appeared to take a resolute position on the Ukrainian conflict. Following making threats of "severe consequences" last August should Russia's president carried on obstructing ceasefire talks, the former president ultimately enacted substantial penalties on the Russian primary petroleum corporations, Rosneft and Lukoil. This decision significantly affected Putin's ability to support his war effort in the region.

But, via his latest 28-point peace plan for Ukraine, reportedly developed by both nations' representatives lacking Ukrainian or EU participation, he has seemingly gone back to his pro-Putin approach.

Favoring Aggression

The former president's plan would in practice benefit Putin for attacking a sovereign nation while leaving the country's democratic system in danger. Although strong statements that "The nation's autonomy will be affirmed", large portions of the plan actually undermine that very autonomy. What represents a Moscow's wish would probably be a Ukrainian nightmare.

Reflecting his real-estate background, the former president continues to view the war as a basic territorial dispute, as if ceding Putin a portion of Ukrainian territory will satisfy the leader. However, Putin's war is not simply about occupying a damaged swath of deindustrialized land in Ukraine's east. Rather, it is about the nation's democracy – and Putin's apparent intention to eliminate it so it no longer serves as an appealing example for the Russian citizens of the democratic governance that his growing dictatorship withholds them.

Land Giveaways

While keeping in place the currently separated regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the plan would force Ukraine to give up the whole Donetsk province. Beyond benefiting Russia with territory that its forces have been unsuccessful to seize in more than a ten years of conflict, this concession would leave Ukrainian military defenses dangerously undermined.

The area is the site of the nation's highly-touted "defensive line", the fortified military defenses that represent a critical obstacle to Russian advances. The proposal would have the Ukrainian military abandon these fortifications, leaving Putin a clear path to the capital if he subsequently opt to restart the war.

Military Reductions

Then, in a action that would enable future conflict more feasible for Russia, the plan would require the nation to reduce the numbers of its military from their existing 800,000 to 850,000 troops to a cap of 600,000. Importantly, the proposal sets no such restrictions on Russia's military.

In what appears as a concession to Putin's campaign to portray the nation's democratically elected government as extremists, Trump's proposal asserts: "Any radical doctrine and actions must be condemned and prohibited." Seemingly to underscore this aspect, it insists that "Ukraine will hold democratic votes in three months" of a ceasefire agreement. Meanwhile, the proposal places no condition that the Russian leader endanger his dictatorship by allowing elections in Russia.

Protection Commitments

Certainly, the proposal includes the Russian Federation commit not to "attack bordering nations" and to "incorporate in law its stance of non-violence towards Europe and the Ukrainian people". But considering that the Russian leadership has breached equivalent treaties in the previous instances – including the 1994 Budapest memorandum, in which the Russian government promised to honor Ukraine's borders in exchange for giving up its former Soviet nuclear arsenal, and the Minsk accords, in which Moscow promised to a halt in fighting and a restoration of occupied areas in eastern Ukraine to Kyiv – why should the international community trust Russia now?

That is why Ukraine has been so adamant on international protection assurances. While the plan warns of a "decisive coordinated defense action" should Russia resume its invasion, and provides that "Ukraine will receive strong security guarantees", the specifics vary from unclear to concerning. The initiative would not only deny the nation alliance membership but also prevent member states from positioning forces on the nation's land, thus precluding the security presence, reportedly headed by the UK and France, on which the Ukrainian government had been depending to prevent Putin from rebuilding his reduced military, restocking, and resuming aggression.

International Response

Another supplementary accord reportedly would offer Ukraine with a similar to NATO defense commitment, in which any future "major, intentional, and ongoing military assault" by the Russian Federation on the country "would be considered as an attack threatening the peace and security of the allied countries." That suggests a military response. But unlike a strong Ukraine's armed forces – Ukraine's primary defense against renewed invasion – the success of the side agreement would rely on the dedication of alliance members, such as the US administration, to react through arms to Putin's aggression, something they have {not