If Donald Trump succeeds in being elected president of the United States in November, he has promised to quickly end the Russia-Ukraine war by mediating an agreement between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky. While Trump has not disclosed any specific details of a potential agreement, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, Senator JD Vance, has hinted at what a potential Trump peace draft might entail.
In a somber Sept. 11 interview with Shawn Ryan, Vance sketched out an arrangement which would allow Moscow to maintain control over all Ukrainian territory presently occupied by Russian forces. Additionally, Ukraine would have to forfeit NATO membership and pledge to international neutrality.
It is relevant to understand that Vance’s explanation has not been officially approved and indeed may not be Trump’s personal perception of a potential peace deal. However, his statement has supplemented existent apprehensions in Kyiv, where there exists an alarm that Ukraine’s Western allies might ultimately try to persuade the country into an unfair peace.
Unfortunately, Vance is not the sole political leader specifying that any peace agreement would be predicated upon Ukraine relinquishing land to Russia. Many other foreign statesmen have also advocated that some type of Ukrainian territorial allowances would be imminent. The concept of conceding land in exchange for peace is totally unacceptable in Ukraine. Ukrainians conclude that a negotiated settlement of this type would be a catastrophic outcome for their nation and would create a perilous exemplar for the future of world security.
Vovchansk’s Resilience: A Ukrainian Community’s Faith Amid the Devastation and Displacement of Russia’s War
Russian forces currently occupy some 20 percent of Ukraine. Since their invasion in February 2022, millions of Ukrainian citizens living in these occupied lands have suffered inhumane crimes like abduction, torture, murder and mass deportation. All of this has transpired amid continuous russification and a total repression of Ukrainian identity.
Sympathetically, hardly any Ukrainians are ready to permanently forsake their fellow countrymen to such a destiny. They further recognize that any ceding of Ukrainian territory would signify a Russian victory. This would seemingly confirm and validate Vladimir Putin’s invasion and possibly pave the way for the next chapter of Russian aggression against Ukraine.
Ukraine is also vehemently opposed to the notion of neutral status. Neutrality would leave the country internationally secluded and unprotected from further Russian attacks. Ukrainians cite precedent with Russia’s widely recounted indifference to prior accords protecting Ukraine’s sovereignty such as the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. They stress that any security assurances from the Kremlin have no value.
Compromise peace proposals with Moscow represent a basic misconception of Russia’s motives for its invasion of Ukraine. It is not Putin’s goal to expand the physical boundaries of the expansive Russian Federation or to protect his country’s borders against a military incursion. He views the war in civilizational terms with an ultimate goal of preventing the fortification of a democratic Ukraine on his threshold that could encourage a similar movement within Russia.
Putin has never come to grips with the USSR’s collapse and has dedicated most of his political tenure to undo the decision of 1991. He personally saw the Soviet empire fall when populist movements flowed through Eastern Europe while he was a young KGB officer in East Germany. Putin has long been obsessed with the idea that Ukraine’s democratic conversion could pull Russia even further from empire status.
Knowing the above, gaining a mere 20 percent of Ukraine’s territory will not be enough. If his unprovoked invasion is to be deemed a success, Ukraine must either become a failed state or part of Russia. It cannot be allowed to exist as an independent democracy and continue on a path to Euro-Atlantic unification.
Of course there are zero assurances that Putin’s imperialistic aspirations will stop at Ukraine’s western borders. If his invasion results in a Moscow-friendly arrangement, Putin will undoubtedly be motivated to expand further. If this were the case, his first priority would be to re-weaponize and finish conquering Ukraine. In a few years, NATO countries could find themselves opposed by a revived, emboldened and toughened Russian military on their eastern borders.
The West cannot withdraw from Ukraine without weakening international security.
Putin often expresses his regret that the Soviet Union broke up, calling it “the disintegration of historical Russia.” Similarly, he asserts he is returning “historically Russian lands” in Ukraine. If he is not stopped, odds are his revanchism will widen to add other “historically Russian” countries in Eastern Europe.
In reality, the West cannot withdraw from Ukraine without weakening international security. Signals of Western shortcomings in Ukraine have already heartened Russia. Other autocratic regimes in China, North Korea and Iran are closely monitoring the situation. Any efforts to press Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into agreeing to Putin’s demands would destroy the West’s claim to global leadership. It would also significantly strengthen Russia’s position and its authoritarian allies.
Almost 32 months after Russia launched the biggest European invasion since World War II, it must be perfectly clear that Russia will not stop until it is defeated. Any careless or foolish ventures to placate Putin with settlements that reward his invasion are guaranteed to boomerang and instigate additional Russian antagonism. Alternatively, the West must finally understand that the only road to viable peace is by a total commitment to a Ukrainian victory.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
