What does the "peace plan" from Trump and Putin mean, and how will politics affect the battlefield?
American representatives handed over 28 points to the Ukrainian leadership. These are not points that should make up a peace agreement; these are points from which a conversation about peace should begin, setting boundaries that Ukraine would have to agree to if it wanted Russia to immediately cease hostilities.
In its essence, this is a plan of surrender:
1. Ukraine voluntarily cedes the entire territory of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions to Russia. Ukraine also cedes those areas of the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions that Russia currently occupies.
Ukraine agrees that, along with Crimea, all these lands are Russia.
2. Ukraine agrees to lift the sanctions imposed on Russia by our allies since 2014 due to the occupation of Ukrainian lands. This means allowing Russia to restore its economy and increase funding for the Russian army.
3. Ukraine must voluntarily renounce its intention to join NATO and amend its Constitution. NATO troops will not be stationed on Ukrainian territory. This means giving up the only available security mechanism.
4. Ukraine must reduce its army to 600,000 people. That is, no matter what the aggressor does, the victim of aggression must limit its own defense capabilities.
We can see how Trump's peace initiatives regarding the Gaza Strip and Iran are actually working. The escalation of hostilities has decreased, but blood is still being shed, and there are no prospects for lasting peace. There is one difference: the US is maximally strengthening the Israel Defense Forces, which is essentially the main guarantor of the peace agreements, and the US has even participated in joint combat operations. This is not the case in the Ukrainian format.
In other words, instead of strengthening its ally, Ukraine, the US is agreeing to its weakening. Moreover, this weakening is not only the recognition of a defeat on the battlefield and the loss of territory. It is the weakening of the state's ability to develop and defend itself independently.
Instead of strengthening the united front of NATO countries against Russia, Trump is splitting this front and not offering Europe a common security strategy.
However, Trump's plan will only be valid in one case – if Ukraine agrees to it. Without Kyiv's consent, these 28 points will remain just another project, most of which Putin has repeatedly tried to impose.
Trump did not issue an official ultimatum on behalf of the US – Trump showed that part of his job as US president was done. And he is trying to personally pressure Ukrainian leaders to agree.
Ukraine's task is to demonstrate that such a US position does not reflect the real situation on the front lines and does not address the root causes of this war.
Therefore, as before, Ukraine's position depends primarily on its own actions and strategy, not on the proposed plans. A significant number of NATO countries support us and disagree with Trump. There is also no firm position in support of such a precarious peace in the United States itself.
The corruption scandal in the Ukrainian government is not related to the peace negotiation process; this is our internal affair.
The key factor in any successful peace negotiations is the situation on the front.
Only the stabilization of the front and the inability to break through it can force Putin to make concessions. And achieving this is entirely within our power. In many areas of the front, we are successfully holding back the enemy; we can do the same on the scale of the entire front.
They only support and rely on the strong, who are capable of defending their strategies. Ukraine also needs its own strategy.
Ukraine has every opportunity to make the necessary critical changes on the front, critical changes in the fight against corruption, and to counter "Trump's peace plan" with its own real peace plan; only the defense forces of Ukraine can become the guarantor of security.
Political and informational maneuvers in war are secondary; the key element of war is the front, and only there is the basis for real negotiations determined.
Comments