'Best' bad peace plan

The EU sincerely hopes that Trump’s plans for Ukraine will also take European security interests into account. Meanwhile, the future president appears to have entirely different expectations.

Europe is openly frightened by the Kremlin, yet it is not abandoning Ukraine. Thus, the European wing of NATO is preparing a plan to end the war based on a "neither ours nor theirs" formula. But let’s not rush to condemn them.

Brussels is currently less concerned with the status of the occupied territories and more focused on security guarantees for Ukraine—namely, creating safeguards to protect the country in the post-war period without excessively provoking Moscow's dictator (as Bloomberg writes, "avoiding provoking Putin").

Western partners no longer speak about "seeking paths to victory" or "prospects of NATO membership" but instead promise to provide Kyiv with twice as much weaponry. They call this "strengthening Ukraine's negotiating position amid the escalation of Russian aggression." Increased supplies have also been mentioned by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and Alliance foreign ministers.

"After the war ends (or the hot phase of the conflict, depending on how things unfold), the partners are considering creating a demilitarized zone to be patrolled by European forces—a concept reportedly supported by the British, French, and later the Germans."

It’s worth noting that the European wing of the Alliance would prefer to start negotiations with the Kremlin to resolve the situation "as soon as possible," before Trump steps onto the geopolitical stage with his sledgehammer approach to peacemaking. The apparent calculation is to ensure that the new-old occupant of the White House doesn’t reinvent the wheel but instead adopts Europe’s plan.

Effectively, the Old World has declared that it is ready to listen to the Kremlin elder and refuses to consider Ukraine's NATO membership in the foreseeable future. This is because it would mean crossing Russia's red lines, as Moscow sees Ukraine as part of its sphere of influence. On the other hand, Europeans prefer not to see Russian troops on Ukraine's western border, which is why they are showing some activity.

“Meanwhile, Kyiv is forced to acknowledge that what was once considered the worst-case scenario for ending the war has become the best: agreeing to begin a peace process—without the 1991 borders. This ‘coming out’ was necessary for political rapprochement with Trump’s team. A Ukrainian delegation was in the U.S., and here are two pieces of news.”

The bad news is that Trump’s advisers officially continue to adhere to a strategy of pressuring Ukraine, rewarding Putin with trophies in the form of 20%+ of Ukrainian territory, and blocking Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration.

The good news is that pressure will not only be placed on Ukraine. Trump’s special representative on Russia’s war against Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, supported Biden’s efforts in “rushing weapons supplies to Ukraine.” As Kellogg stated, “this will give Trump leverage over Moscow in settlement negotiations” (The Wall Street Journal).

Overall, it’s still too early to say what version of a "peace plan" the White House under Trump will intellectually conceive. The U.S. has no shared borders with either Russia or Ukraine attacked by Putin. Thus, the final version may rely less on geopolitical rationality and more on the diplomatic ease of its implementation.

Trump needs an urgent success and the ability to focus on battling internal enemies and detractors, for which external ones must be appeased. Of course, in practice, U.S.-Russia rapprochement will not be so straightforward, as there are many obstacles on the path to reconciliation. Striking a global peace deal involving a redistribution of spheres of influence is unlikely to happen right away.

It is logical to assume that a potential global Trump-Putin 2025 agreement on Ukraine would primarily entail a ceasefire and years-long negotiations between the aggressor, its victim, and a staggering number of mediators. Such is the "best" bad plan.

Source

About the author. Orest Sohar, journalist, Obozrevatel editor-in-chief.

The editors don't always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.