Ukraine and Europe Can't Afford to Reject Trump's Peace Plan

Much of the peace proposal for Ukraine that the Trump administration has outlined so far is not novel, relying instead on sensible ideas, and these have essentially already gained implicit acceptance from Kyiv.

Ukrainian authorities have admitted that their military doesn’t stand a good chance in the near future of reclaiming the areas currently under Russian control. The assertion made by Vice President J.D. Vance that the American strategy will "essentially freeze the current borders...as they are right now" merely recognizes this undeniable reality.

Alternatively, by supposedly consenting to a truce at the current battlefront, Putin has signaled his willingness to drop Russia’s insistence that Ukraine relinquish control over portions of the regions claimed by Moscow but currently held by Kyiv. This makes practical sense as well. There is no way Ukraine would consent to surrendering this territory, and considering how slowly Russian forces have advanced so far, seizing these areas amidst Ukrainian opposition supported by the U.S. could turn into an extended and extremely brutal conflict with little for Russia to gain beyond ruined landscapes.

Despite lacking a U.S. veto, NATO membership for Ukraine remains unfeasible. This is due to two main reasons: firstly, every current NATO member has stated they won’t engage in combat to protect Ukraine; secondly, multiple European nations would oppose Kyiv joining as well. In fact, early in the conflict discussions, President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged this reality when he noted that top NATO administrations—including the Biden administration—had declined to offer NATO membership within half a decade. Consequently, he proposed a neutral treaty incorporating security assurances as Ukraine’s optimal path forward.

The Trump proposal includes an unexpected element: acknowledging Russia’s dominion over Crimea. While neutrality and tacit approval of Russian influence over the remaining areas aren’t groundbreaking, recognizing Crimean sovereignty marks a significant capitulation to Russia. However, this isn't as substantial as portrayed in Western press coverage because it doesn't address the additional four regions in Eastern Ukraine claimed by Russia through annexation.

It remains uncertain whether the Trump administration is merely providing official acknowledgment of Russia’s control over Crimea or if they—and Moscow—will demand that Ukraine also recognize this, a move that would likely be unfeasible for President Zelensky’s administration. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt from the White House stated. said Trump’s proposal to acknowledge Russia’s control over Crimea is solely for the U.S. and does not require Ukraine to do the same.

It was imprudent and lacking foresight for Zelensky to act amidst such uncertainty. declare Right away, saying "there is nothing to discuss here." Perhaps he feels no discussion is necessary — and rejecting such overtures publicly isn’t likely to keep the Trump administration sympathetic.

There is a valid legal, ethical, and historical justification for the U.S. to handle matters concerning Crimea separately. This is because Crimea’s transfer from the Russian Soviet Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic occurred via a Soviet edict in 1954, conducted without even feigning engagement with the populace living there. Additionally, the predominantly favorable outcome of the referendum where Crimeans chose to align themselves with Russia in 2014 seems largely legitimate. Conversely, the "referendums" orchestrated by Russia across the other four regions amid the conflict are appropriately deemed entirely untrustworthy.

Is this strategy expected to achieve tranquility? It seems Russia might be nearing acceptance; however, based on what has been disclosed up until now, the proposal doesn’t seem to tackle several key Russian concerns. These include securing the rights of ethnic Russians within Ukraine, imposing restrictions on Ukraine’s military capabilities, and most importantly, prohibiting any form of European "reassurance force" from being stationed in Ukraine—a matter that Britain, France, and others have been diligently addressing.

There is a chance that the Kremlin might add further excessively stringent conditions to the peace proposal (such as significant cuts to the size of the Ukrainian military). If this occurs, Trump ought to attribute the breakdown of the peace talks to Moscow, and even though he withdraws from the negotiations, he should ensure continued American support for Ukraine persists.

One major reason for Moscow's agreement is that the Putin government is highly concerned about Trump potentially blaming Ukraine and Europe, rather than Russia, for the collapse of negotiations. If Trump follows through with his threat to "withdraw" from the peace process, he might also terminate military and intelligence support to Kyiv.

For those very reasons, both the Ukrainians and Europeans would be foolish to dismiss this proposal immediately, as their preliminary comments indicate might happen. It has been pointed out that Ukraine’s official objectives—to join NATO and reclaim its annexed regions—are highly unlikely to materialize. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, Ukraine stands to lose nothing by accepting Trump’s offer.

If the British government adheres to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s assertion that a European "reassurance force" could be deployed in Ukraine solely under the condition that the U.S. serves as a "backup," then such a force will not come into existence either. Given President Donald Trump’s lack of willingness to offer this assurance—effectively tantamount to granting Ukraine de facto NATO membership—the initiative faces significant obstacles. Additionally, major European countries like Poland have expressed their refusal to take part in any such force.

Currently and for quite some time ahead, both the British and French forces appear to lack the necessary personnel for such deployments, particularly within the scenario of a potential conflict with Russia. As noted by a previous head of the British Army, General Lord Dannatt, this situation persists. said Given the requirement for rotating and training troops, as many as 40,000 British soldiers might need to be allocated to this kind of force, and "we simply do not have that quantity at our disposal." Establishing such a force for Ukraine would also entail concluding British obligations to protect current NATO member countries, particularly the Baltic nations and Poland.

Currently, Kyiv and most European governments seem inclined to respond to the Trump plan with a "no, but." They intend to reject the proposal outright but express willingness to discuss certain parts of it. However, this approach would be highly imprudent should Russia actually agree to it. Trump is awaiting their decision and he isn’t known for his patience. The administration’s warning that they might abandon Ukraine and Europe to fend for themselves couldn’t have been more explicit. As stated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, stated :

The Ukrainians must return home; they should consult with their president and consider everyone's opinions on the situation. However, we need to determine within a few days if this can be accomplished in the near future. If it cannot, then I believe we will simply proceed without it.

Should the U.S. ultimately decide to "move on," Ukraine could find itself in an extremely vulnerable position, with Western European nations potentially facing a stark dilemma: either suffer significant embarrassment or confront grave peril. Because without continued American support, Ukraine’s capacity to maintain its current defensive posture would diminish considerably, thereby increasing the likelihood of a successful Russian advance.

In such an event, Europeans would face two unappealing choices: they must either acknowledge that their "unbreakable" commitments to Ukraine were merely symbolic, or deploy military personnel directly within Ukrainian borders. Of course, they might choose to remain stationed in cities like Kyiv and Odessa, which are distant from active conflict zones; however, this wouldn’t significantly aid Ukraine’s defense efforts. Moreover, without orchestrating a strategic agreement with Moscow that involved substantial territorial concessions to Russia, how could European aerial units steer clear of engaging in direct hostilities?

Considering these immediate threats, and acknowledging that specifics of the Trump plan remain unresolved, the suitable reaction from both Ukrainian and European officials should be "yes, but" — particularly if they aim to maintain any chance of securing continued backing from Washington for Ukraine.

The proposal put forth by Trump would result in 80% of Ukraine remaining autonomous and able to pursue potential EU membership. Historically speaking, this outcome would represent a significant though limited triumph for Ukraine. Declining this plan could lead to further setbacks for Ukraine, potentially far more severe.

The story initially appeared on Responsible Statecraft. this story