Peace deal that US is offering Ukraine is terrible. But Kyiv will have to accept it - Sunday Times
Trump's peace plan for Ukraine contradicts both international law and basic decency But it may be impossible for Ukraine or other Western allies to improve the terms of this agreement.
As Censor.NET informs, this was written by Mark Galeotti, an expert on Eastern Europe, for The Sunday Times.
The peace plan has not been publicly disclosed, but its terms are clear. It provides for an immediate ceasefire and the start of direct negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv. Ukraine would be barred from joining NATO and would sign a planned deal with Washington on minerals and infrastructure. In the meantime, America will formally recognize Russia's sovereignty over annexed Crimea and informally recognize its control over other occupied territories. The United States will also lift its sanctions against Moscow, although there may be an immediate "rollback" if Russian aggression resumes.
"It will be extremely difficult for Ukraine to accept such generous conditions for the invader," the author emphasizes.
He adds that the adoption of this agreement will only embolden Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. In addition, there is a possibility that Beijing will consider the Kremlin's reward for the seizure of a part of a sovereign state as a license to seize Taiwan.
These are arguments against the current peace conditions that should be considered by the United States and its European partners, but, the observer emphasizes, Ukraine in its struggle for survival cannot afford the luxury of worrying about the fate of other states.
Reflecting on whether the deal will be the end of Volodymyr Zelenskyy's political career, the author notes that the agreement "may well be the last favor this wartime president will render to his country."
The reaction of many Ukrainians and their allies is that Ukraine can and should continue to fight. However, Galeotti emphasizes that Washington is likely determined to wash its hands of the deal if Kyiv rejects it.
Putin's troops are also devastated and will take years to rebuild, but without US military support for Kyiv, the odds on the battlefield will begin to change, the author is convinced.
According to Galeotti, if Ukraine continues to fight without US intelligence and munitions, "at some point in the future, its leaders will eventually be forced to accept even tougher terms."
Analyzing the potential deal, the observer also notes that it does not include restrictions on Ukraine's ability to defend itself. The agreement provides for a ban on joining NATO, but it does not restrict participation in other military alliances or the presence of foreign troops on Ukrainian territory.
"Potential membership in the European Union offers Ukraine the prospect of not only greater prosperity, but also security, as the Treaty on Europe commits all members to mutual defense," Galeotti writes.
In addition, according to the terms being discussed, Moscow will give up its claims to the regions it does not currently occupy, and even withdraw its troops from the territories in the south. The refusal to accept the loss of Crimea has been a red line for Kyiv throughout the peace process, and this plan, by distinguishing between the future status of Crimea and other occupied territories, leaves the prospect of the latter returning to Kyiv's control in the future, the author argues.
According to Galeotti, the main beneficiary of the agreement will be Putin, who will claim it as a victory not only over Ukraine but also over the West, but his triumph will be spoiled. The Russian dictator wanted to control the whole of Ukraine, but instead he gets a fifth of its territory, which is ruined and in need of large investments. He also faces another part of Ukraine that is united and fiercely determined to resist the Kremlin's influence. At the same time, many Russians doubt that "this victory" was worth the nearly one million dead and wounded, as well as the economic and social losses.
For Ukraine's allies, if there is any way to redeem this grossly unfair deal, it must be to make the country truly sovereign, democratic, and above all, secure. This is where the "coalition of the willing" should provide more than just symbolic assistance, Galeotti emphasizes.
The observer also quotes U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio as saying that the agreement is "doable."
It does not require Kyiv to give up any occupied territories.
"If Kyiv cannot use the Vatican meeting to persuade Trump to reconsider the terms, it should seriously consider accepting the deal after all. As awful as it is, this ultimatum is probably the best deal Ukraine can get," Galeotti concludes.
