Trump's Plan for Ukraine

 Trump's Plan for Ukraine

President Trump's proposed plan for ending the conflict between Russia and Ukraine seems, to Ukraine and its European sympathisers, to be too biased in favour of Russia. 

Ukraine has to vacate territory, Russia  does not. Ukraine has to limit its armed forces, Russia does not. Russia started the war, Ukraine did not.

The draft plan [Ref1] proposes that Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognised as de facto Russian. This is ambiguous. The Charter of the United Nations is clear that it is no longer possible to conquer territory by force of arms. I do not think anyone could object to recognising certain territories including Crimea as being occupied by Russia, pending elections. That would simply recognise the fact of occupation. It would not confer 'ownership', nor any other legal rights or status.  

(Indeed the idea of ownership seems very odd in the context of states and territory. At least to those of us so lucky as to have been brought up under the principle of democracy; it is surely up to the people of Donetsk and Luhansk, not up to Putin, Trump or Zelensky, to decide whether (in the long term) they want to be part of Russia, or part of Ukraine. Russia should woo those people with cultural benefits, rather than by blowing out their windows with high explosives. )

The plan contains suggested forward commitments regarding Ukraine's membership of NATO and the European Union. These may be more sensible than the terms discussed above.  In the sort term, it does seem unacceptable to Russia to have NATO suddenly on its door-step.  That must be recognised. I have previously discussed the possibility that NATO could "guarantee" the independence of Ukraine without stationing troops on Ukrainian soil [Ref2]. 

There is nothing in Ukraine's dramatic gesture of rushing to fight with its giant neighbour that makes it incumbent on NATO to come to its aid. The power of NATO probably lies in the nuclear arsenal of the United States; the troops and the money may come from Europe, but the ultimate sanction is almost entirely in the hands of the 'gringos'.  If the US does not wish to use its weapons agains Russia it will not do so. 

On the other hand, if Europe does want to use its strength (economic and military) against an encroaching and bullying Russia, it should aim to prevail, and not just ring its hands and talk. The question of a European defence force may arise again, as it did before, but with far greater urgency [Ref3]  It is often argued that the best way to maintain peace is to prepare for war – and be very clear about one's own red lines and those of one's neighbours. 

References

[Ref1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cde6yld78d6o

[Ref2] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2025/03/no-nato-boots-in-ukraine.html 

[Ref3] https://ecfr.eu/article/the-four-pillars-of-european-defence/