If Donald Trump wins the United States presidential election in November, he has pledged to bring the war in Ukraine to a swift end by brokering an agreement between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump himself has yet to elaborate on the terms of any potential deal, but his vice presidential pick, Senator JD Vance, recently provided some insight into what a Trump peace proposal might involve.
In a September 11 interview with The Shawn Ryan Show, Vance outlined a settlement that would allow the Kremlin to retain control over all Ukrainian territory currently under Russian occupation. Meanwhile, Ukraine would be expected to reject NATO membership and commit to international neutrality.
It is important to underline that Vance’s interpretation has not been officially endorsed and may not match Trump’s personal vision for a future peace plan. Nevertheless, his comments have added to existing concerns in Kyiv, where many fear that Ukraine’s Western partners may eventually attempt to pressure the country into an unjust peace.
Vance is far from alone in indicating that any future negotiated settlement would include Ukraine ceding land to Russia. Numerous other foreign politicians and commentators have also suggested that some form of Ukrainian territorial concessions are inevitable. However, the idea of a land-for-peace deal remains deeply unpopular in Ukraine itself. Ukrainians believe an agreement of this nature would have disastrous consequences for their own country and would set a dangerous precedent for the future of international security.
Russia currently occupies around 20 percent of Ukraine. Since February 2022, the millions of Ukrainians living under Russian occupation have been subjected to a litany of crimes including mass deportation, abduction, torture, and murder. All this has taken place against a backdrop of relentless russification and the complete suppression of Ukrainian identity.
Understandably, very few Ukrainians are prepared to permanently abandon their compatriots to such a fate. They also recognize that any handover of Ukrainian land would be perceived as a victory in Moscow. This would serve to justify and legitimize the current invasion, while setting the stage for the next phase of Russia’s war against Ukrainian statehood.
There is also widespread skepticism in Ukraine toward suggestions that the country should accept neutral status. Many Ukrainians believe neutrality would leave Ukraine internationally isolated and vulnerable to further Russian aggression. They point to Russia’s well-documented disregard for earlier agreements safeguarding Ukrainian sovereignty such as the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, and argue that any security guarantees signed by the Kremlin are essentially worthless.
Calls for some kind of compromise peace with the Kremlin reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the motives driving Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin’s primary goal is not to add yet more land to the vastness of the Russian Federation or to secure his country’s borders against military attack. Instead, he sees the war in civilizational terms, and aims to prevent the consolidation of a democratic Ukrainian state on his doorstep that could inspire calls for similar change inside Russia itself.
Putin is haunted by the collapse of the USSR and has spent much of his political career trying to reverse the verdict of 1991. As a young KGB officer in East Germany, he personally witnessed the fall of the Soviet Empire as people power movements swept across Eastern Europe. Throughout his reign, Putin has been obsessed with the idea that Ukraine’s democratic transformation could spark a new chapter in Russia’s retreat from empire.
With this in mind, merely claiming twenty percent of Ukrainian land will not suffice. In order for Putin to view his invasion as a success, Ukraine must become either an obedient Russian region or a failed state. It cannot be allowed to continue in its present form or advance further toward Euro-Atlantic integration.
Nor is there any guarantee that Putin’s expansionist ambitions will end at the western borders of Ukraine. If the current invasion leads to a Kremlin-friendly settlement, Putin will inevitably be encouraged to go further. In such circumstances, his immediate objective would be to rearm and complete the conquest of Ukraine. Within a matter of years, NATO countries could find themselves confronted by a resurgent and combat-tested Russian military on their eastern flank.
Putin has often spoken of his regret at the breakup of the Soviet Union, which he has referred to as “the disintegration of historical Russia.” In similar fashion, he also claims to be returning “historically Russian lands” in Ukraine. If the present invasion does not end in defeat, who can guarantee that Putin’s revanchist claims will not expand to include the many other “historically Russian” countries in the neighborhood?
The idea that the West can disengage from Ukraine without undermining international security is a dangerous fantasy. Signs of Western weakness in Ukraine have already visibly emboldened Russia. Other authoritarian states including China, Iran, and North Korea are watching closely. Any attempt to push Kyiv into accepting Putin’s terms would shatter the West’s claim to global leadership, while greatly strengthening the position of Russia and its autocratic allies.
More than two and a half years after Moscow launched the largest European invasion since World War II, it should now be painfully clear that Russia will not stop until it is stopped. Any shortsighted attempts to appease Putin with compromises that reward his invasion will inevitably backfire and fuel more Russian aggression. Instead, the West must recognize that the only way to achieve a sustainable peace is by committing fully to Ukrainian victory.
Kateryna Odarchenko is a partner at SIC Group Ukraine. Elena Davlikanova is a fellow at CEPA.
Source: euractiv.com
