🔗 Share this article

For a brief period, Donald Trump gave the impression to adopt a resolute approach concerning the Ukrainian conflict. Following making threats of "serious ramifications" during the summer in case Vladimir Putin continued obstructing ceasefire negotiations, the former president eventually enacted major restrictions on the Russian two largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil. This move seriously impacted the Russian leader's capacity to fund his military invasion in the region.

But, with his latest 28-point peace proposal for the conflict, which was developed by both nations' diplomats excluding Ukrainian or EU participation, the former president has clearly returned to his pro-Putin stance.

Rewarding Military Action

The former president's initiative would effectively favor the Russian leader for attacking a sovereign nation while putting Ukraine's democracy in peril. Although strong declarations that "The nation's independence will be confirmed", large portions of the initiative in reality compromise that same autonomy. What represents a Kremlin dream would certainly be a Ukrainian nightmare.

Demonstrating his corporate background, the former president continues to treat the situation in Ukraine as a mere border issue, like ceding Putin a section of Ukrainian soil will please the leader. Yet, Putin's invasion is not only about dominating a charred area of economically weakened land in the Donbas region. Instead, it's about the nation's democracy – and Putin's clear desire to weaken it so it stops serves as an appealing model for the Russian people of the responsible leadership that Putin's growing autocracy denies them.

Border Surrenders

Although maintaining in place the presently separated oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, Trump's proposal would compel the nation to surrender the entire Donetsk province. In addition to favoring the Russian Federation with territory that its troops have been unable to occupy in exceeding a decade of warfare, this giveaway would leave Ukraine's defensive positions dangerously compromised.

Donetsk is the place of Ukraine's much-vaunted "fortress belt", the entrenched protective structures that are a essential barrier to enemy progress. The proposal would have Ukraine leave these defenses, leaving Russian forces a clear way to the capital if he subsequently choose to restart the war.

Defense Restrictions

Then, in a move that would facilitate additional hostilities more feasible for the Russian military, Trump would require Ukraine to cut the size of its armed forces from their existing 800,000 to 850,000 troops to a maximum of 600,000. Importantly, Trump's proposal sets no such constraints on Russia's military.

Apparently as a concession to Russia's efforts to characterize Ukraine's democratically elected leadership as extremists, the plan asserts: "Every extremist doctrine and practices must be rejected and prohibited." Seemingly to underscore this aspect, it requires that "Ukraine will hold democratic votes in this period" of a ceasefire agreement. However, the proposal imposes no obligation that Putin endanger his authoritarian rule by holding democratic processes in his own country.

Protection Commitments

To be sure, the plan makes the Russian Federation pledge not to "attack bordering nations" and to "incorporate in legislation its position of non-violence towards the EU and Ukraine". But considering that Putin has breached comparable treaties in the history – such as the 1994 Budapest memorandum, in which Russia pledged to recognize Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for relinquishing its historical atomic arms, and the Minsk accords, in which Russia committed to a ceasefire and a return of occupied territory in the Donbas to the government – why should the international community believe Putin this time?

This explains Ukraine has been so adamant on external defense commitments. Although the initiative warns of a "immediate unified military response" should the Russian Federation renew its military campaign, and provides that "Ukraine will receive reliable defense commitments", the specifics include unclear to troubling. The initiative would not only deny the nation Nato membership but also prevent member states from positioning troops on Ukrainian territory, effectively precluding the peacekeeping contingent, presumptively commanded by Britain and France, on which Ukraine had been counting to prevent Russia from rebuilding his weakened forces, restocking, and resuming aggression.

International Response

A separate side agreement apparently would grant the nation with a similar to NATO defense commitment, in which any future "major, intentional, and continuous aggression" by the Russian Federation on Ukraine "would be considered as an attack threatening the stability and safety of the Western nations." This implies a defense action. Yet different from a strong national defense – the nation's primary defense against future hostilities – the credibility of the parallel accord would depend on the commitment of Western powers, including Trump, to respond militarily to Russia's aggression, a response they have {not