President Donald Trump has magicked up some unexpected momentum in Russia–Ukraine peace talks by proposing a 28-point settlement to the war. You might think Ukraine’s Western supporters would welcome the chance for peace, considering how dreadfully the war is going for Ukrainians.
You might be wrong.
Blowhards on both sides of the Atlantic reacted with moral outrage, depicting the proposal as a forced capitulation for Volodymyr Zelensky and a wish list for Vladimir Putin. A rumor even spread that the plan was literally Russian, authored by the Kremlin and transmitted to Washington for delivery to Kiev (a rumor swiftly batted down by Axios and the White House). Thomas Friedman of The New York Times wrote that, if the “surrender” plan is imposed on Zelensky by Thanksgiving, then Turkey Day “will become a Russian holiday.”
This is laughable stuff. But it’s also maddeningly counterproductive. Trump’s peace plan is about as balanced as Ukraine could realistically hope, given Russia’s momentum on the battlefield. Even so, Zelensky may not have the political leeway to accept it, since doing so would risk a revolt by hardline nationalists. One idea that I heard while in Kiev last month is that Zelensky needs Trump to play the bad guy and force him to accept a deal.
If that’s right, then the Thomas Friedmans of the world—the people insisting that Trump’s plan surrenders Ukraine’s freedom, so Zelensky cannot possibly accept it—are acting as peace-spoilers, not democracy-defenders.
They are reducing the political cover the White House is providing Zelensky to “reluctantly” make a deal. Unwittingly (I hope), they are raising the pressure on Zelensky to continue a war that Ukraine is losing, and on Trump to insert poison pills into the agreement that Moscow cannot accept. They just might succeed. As always, the ones who will pay the costs are the Ukrainians themselves.
If the Trump deal really was a giveaway to Putin, then the critics would have a stronger case. But it’s not.
The very first point—Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed—alone makes it a good deal for Kiev. Under the agreement, Ukraine would remain a sovereign nation-state free to join the European Union and become the Western-style democracy that so many Ukrainians want their nation to be. As Anatol Lieven of the Quincy Institute writes, “An agreement that leaves three quarters of Ukraine independent and with a path to EU membership would in fact be a Ukrainian victory, albeit a qualified one.”
So, what are the critics carping about?
One common objection is that the plan requires Ukrainian forces to withdraw from parts of the Donetsk province that Kiev still controls. To be sure, that’s a bitter pill for Ukrainians to swallow. But Russia is gobbling up that territory anyway and will capture all of it sooner or later if the war continues. The Trump plan offers Ukraine something better, turning this territory into a “neutral demilitarized buffer zone” that Russian forces may not enter.
Critics have also objected to point number 6: “The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel.” On CNN, Josh Rogin of the Washington Post depicted the plan as forcing Ukrainians to give up “their right to have a military.”
That characterization is absurd. The plan allows Ukraine to maintain a military more than twice as large as when Russia invaded in early 2022—and probably larger than Ukraine would field in peacetime anyway. By the way, does anyone actually believe that Putin—whose war aims include the “demilitarization” of Ukraine—authored this provision or was happy to learn of it?
Europe’s “Big Three”—Britain, France, and Germany—have drafted a “counterproposal” that amounts to nothing more than edits to the U.S. proposal, all of which make the deal less attractive to Moscow or Washington or both. One wonders why they haven’t created a proposal of their own or established diplomatic channels with Moscow—and whether their true aim is to sabotage U.S. diplomacy and fight Russia “to the last Ukrainian,” as antiwar voices have alleged.
Happily, the past few days have also brought fair assessments of the Trump deal, including from surprising sources. Damir Marusic of the Washington Post writes that “the plan is not necessarily the disaster depicted in much Western media.” He reports that an “adviser close to Zelensky” saw the proposal as an “opportunity” and “starting point” for negotiation. The adviser “insisted that Ukraine must face reality and stop the bloodshed.”
More surprisingly still, the pro-Ukraine historian Niall Ferguson wrote on X, “Contrary to recent press speculation, the draft 28-point plan for peace in Ukraine is in fact a reasonable basis for negotiations.” Zelensky’s former press secretary, Iuliia Mendel, offered the most poignant defense of the proposal. “Every subsequent deal for Ukraine will only be worse—because we are losing,” she wrote. “We are losing people, territory, and the economy.”
This is a crucial, and perilous, moment for Ukraine. But sanity is dawning on the Western world, and not a moment too soon. Trump just might get Ukraine out of its current mess—unless its “supporters” find a way to screw everything up.
Read the full article here
