Ukraine and Trump
Trump has famously said that he could end the conflict in Ukraine in 24 hours, but it might not be that easy. The democrats and the American establishment, supported by the military-industrial complex, have no interest in peace. The Biden administration just decided to send another six billion to Ukraine in what has developed into an American proxy war. Trump just came up with a plan for a ceasefire and to start negotiating a peace plan. However, Russia trashed the plan pitched by Trump’s team to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict by deferring Kyiv’s NATO membership in exchange for a ceasefire.
For any kind of peace, Ukraine cannot join NATO, not now or in the future. As Biden’s obsession of NATO eastward expansion is one of the key reasons, maybe the key reason, for the conflict, it seems peculiar that a deferment would even been in the cards. Trump’s repeated criticism of Ukraine and U.S. funding for Kyiv, and his promise to end the war within a day, once in power, have prompted concerns among NATO allies about the compromises he might demand of Ukraine. Bottom line though, is that there will have to be some kind of compromise as Russia slowly but surely is winning.
It is not clear what details are in Trump’s so called peace plan, but the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s plans for a truce in Ukraine involve delaying Kyiv’s NATO membership by 20 years. This is clearly not a good idea and Russia would not agree to this. Another detail is to use the current geographical line of demarcation between Russia and Ukraine as demilitarized zone. This demilitarized zone would span nearly 1,290km. It remains unclear who would police the zone, but likely Europeans and the UK.
Under the plan, Ukraine would have to cede some of its eastern territory to Russia, including parts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Russia has taken hold of about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory since 2014. If Trump were to offer Putin a deal in which Russia gets to effectively keep the Ukrainian territory it currently controls, there is a chance Russia would accept.
After all, Trump is in a strong position. He can sustain a long conflict as the U.S. wins from huge defense sales with zero US casualties. He could also escalate by sending more advanced weaponry and use more targeted precision missiles.
Ukraine had earlier stressed that any peace deal must involve nullifying Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, which was annexed in 2014. This is not going to happen though, and Crimea is Russian historically, now and in the future. The other areas of eastern Ukraine are Russian-speaking and under Russian control, so it seems logical that the eastern parts will belong to Russia going forward.
With Russia rejecting a compromise over NATO membership, which Ukraine gets, but only 20 years later, it is unclear how Kyiv and Moscow can return to the negotiating table. Ukraine likely feels they need some kind of security if they hand over territory and stop fighting and NATO membership is the centerpiece of what Zelenskyy has been pushing as his peace plan.
Either way, NATO or not, there needs to be a plan that guarantees Ukraine’s security. That means either bilateral security guarantees from the West or cast-iron assurances that they will give Ukraine all the tools needed to defend themselves, rather like Israel or South Korea. A bilateral agreement might be of interest to Trump too as it would keep NATO out of it and there could be a more bilateral cooperation between Ukraine and the U.S. From a Russian perspective, it might be better to have a Ukraine aligned with the U.S. rather than NATO.