With US Indifference, Putin is Living His Dream
Olga Chyzh
Assistant Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Toronto
This week, US-Russia peace talks commenced regarding a matter neither party truly controls – Ukraine. The glaring absence of Ukrainian representatives has drawn justified criticism, yet the underlying issue is even more significant. A potential peace agreement might be negotiated through a mediator, provided the discussions address the reality of the situation. Currently, however, substantive issues such as the logistical nightmare of enforcing a ceasefire along a 1,000km contact line remain unaddressed.
What’s unfolding is less a legitimate diplomatic effort and more a game of chess where one participant is unaware of the rules while the other is making them up as he proceeds.
Donald Trump, who styles himself as the “artist of the deal,” proclaimed he could end the conflict in one day. Vladimir Putin and his inner circle are undoubtedly amused. Their fantasy of humiliating the US is being realized, and with Trump as an unwitting ally, they’re living it. Putin is not negotiating in good faith, as is customary; throughout crises in Georgia and Donbas, ceasefires have served as strategic traps. Despite rising costs of the war, he has been inflexible regarding his initial demands: total domination over Ukraine, either through annexation or installing a puppet regime. His conservative elites view Ukraine as fundamental to Russia’s imperial aspirations, while economic oligarchs are keen on its vast mineral resources and potential sanctions relief. Meanwhile, Trump’s amplification of Kremlin narratives legitimizes the war for ordinary Russians.
While the current negotiations might not win Putin his ultimate goal – Ukraine isn’t Trump’s to hand over – they serve to further his other ambitions: reducing sanctions, humiliating the US, and weakening NATO. Thanks to Trump’s cooperation, he is getting a large part of what he desires.
Ironically, amidst this farcical negotiation, Ukraine is not the biggest casualty. Kyiv has seen a reduction in US military aid, yet has increased its own weapons production while seeking additional support from Europe. Today, Ukraine is in a significantly better position than it was three years ago, and it will continue to fight – with or without Washington.
The true casualty is the US itself. Trump is exchanging Washington’s global reputation for the amusement of Putin and his allies, leaving US allies bewildered. The world watches as the US president echoes the rhetoric of one of the nation’s foremost adversaries. The long-term repercussions for US international standing and global security could be more profound than he recognizes.
The World Faces Critical Questions About Who Will Secure Peace in Ukraine
Frank Ledwidge
Barrister and former military officer who served in the Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan
In Northwood, far northeast of London, the Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) is home to some of the UK’s most talented young military strategists, who are contemplating a potential deployment to Ukraine.
What can Western armed forces effectively provide and maintain? For NATO as a whole, one question seems settled. Despite Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s plea for 100,000 European troops to secure Ukraine’s safety, the actual number available is closer to 30,000. The UK’s contribution under ideal circumstances would amount to a single brigade of 7,000 to 8,000 troops from a severely diminished British army, requiring 70-80% of its combat support resources, particularly critical engineering capabilities.
Thirty thousand troops are fewer than half of the well-equipped forces NATO (including significant US contingents) deployed to restore peace in Bosnia and Kosovo – both of which were smaller conflicts with less robust opposition and minimal risk. The demands on any deployed contingent would be immense. Crucially, British and other Western troops would become principal targets for Russian or pro-Russian “grey zone” drone strikes or other lethal asymmetric threats.
Whisper it if you dare, but sustaining such an operation may necessitate assistance from outside Western Europe. NATO’s most substantial European ground force, Turkey, has navigated this war skillfully and would pose logistical challenges for Russia to provoke. Additionally, there is the possibility of another power stepping in; China, Ukraine’s leading trade partner, has hinted at the potential for joining such a force, contingent upon the involvement of other non-NATO states, like India.
For politicians, two crucial questions arise. If this mission could ever materialize, contingent on Russian consent and perhaps a UN mandate, how would it conclude? Is it envisioned as a Balkans-style operation with reasonably clear parameters or as a years-long Afghan-style commitment draining British and NATO resources? Past experience suggests these fundamental questions ought to guide strategy, yet they often do not.
We Desire Peace, Yet We Have Spent Three Years Fighting for Our Right to Exist
Bohdana Khymenko
Lawyer and Mediator from Kyiv
It’s peculiar that I have to express this, but there isn’t a Ukrainian who does not desire peace. We all long for this war to cease, for the bloodshed to end, and for life to revert to normal.
When Donald Trump initially addressed the possibilities of peace talks and took a strong stand against Vladimir Putin, many of us felt a flicker of hope. We’ve observed that while US and European backing has been vital for our survival, it hasn’t sufficed for an outright victory, and Joe Biden’s diplomatic approach with Putin has fallen short.
However, I now feel profoundly disappointed – bordering on outright betrayal. I had anticipated robust leadership and substantial support from Trump but instead found his rhetoric (and the absence of meaningful action) suggesting a completely different direction. It appears the US is leaning toward blaming the victim and perhaps even colluding with the aggressor in a way that could inflict further harm on us.
As a lawyer and mediator, I recognize the intricacies of conflicts, understanding that even the most grueling wars must eventually reach a resolution through negotiations. However, if Trump aspires to be a peacemaker, it cannot be for his political advantage. He must remain impartial – not by equating Ukraine with Russia, but by acknowledging the harsh realities of this war. If he treats both parties as equal, who is he genuinely aiding? And what implications does this hold for other aggressors on the global stage?
My greatest fear is that our struggle and sacrifices will ultimately be disregarded. That the toll taken on my father’s health, sacrificed for this war, will be overlooked. That the US and other powers will broker a deal with Russia, dismembering Ukraine instead of assisting us in achieving victory. We are not striving for fleeting peace – we are fighting to exist as a free and sovereign nation.
Political Scientist and Co-author of Conflict in Ukraine: The Unraveling of the Post-Cold War Order
Donald Trump’s recent remarks regarding the war in Ukraine have sparked confusion in Europe and alarm in Kyiv. He has charged Ukraine with initiating the 2022 conflict with Russia and labeled Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator. Although substantive negotiations to end the war have yet to commence, Trump omitted Ukraine and Europe from the recent meeting in Saudi Arabia involving high-ranking American and Russian officials. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Trump has been quite clear and candid about what he considers an acceptable settlement. Ukraine will not be permitted to join NATO. It must surrender territory occupied by Russia, although he hasn’t specified how much. The US won’t furnish postwar Ukraine with security guarantees. European nations might, provided they comprehend that the soldiers involved won’t be protected under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which pledges collective defense. However, Trump’s stance on this point might evolve: Russia has ruled out any NATO troops, in any capacity, on Ukrainian soil. Trump aims for a new, cooperative rapport with Russia and may endorse Moscow’s stance.
Trump has essentially distanced himself from Ukraine, overturning US policy established since the Russian invasion. His strategy for mediating an end to the war has astonished the US foreign policy sphere. Nevertheless, he exhibits contempt for its perspectives and knows those who supported him will cheer. That’s what truly matters to him. If Kyiv opts to persist in its fight or seeks security assurances, it must look to Europe for assistance. As the president remarked, the US can withdraw from Ukraine: an ocean separates their fates.
Europe Has a Significant Role Ahead
Rosa Balfour
Director of Carnegie Europe
Should the US pivot away from Ukraine and its NATO allies, Europe stands at a pivotal moment. It can convert its support for Kyiv into leadership concerning the continent’s future, whether or not it participates in potential ceasefire discussions. Alternatively, it risks becoming susceptible to further Russian aggression and potentially turning into a subordinate of the US.
Europe’s military and financial backing of Ukraine has, in fact, outpaced that of the US. Over the last three years, European nations and the European Union have provided Ukraine with €62bn in military support (compared to €64bn from the US) and €70bn in financial and humanitarian aid (against €50bn from the US).
Estimates suggest that Europeans would need to raise spending by 0.12% of their GDP to offset a US withdrawal. Beyond securing the financial means and access to necessary military resources, Europe must also evolve its defense collaboration to deter future Russian incursions. This would represent a momentous leap, yet is essential for preserving Europe’s independence – from Russia, and notably from a Trump-led US.
While security is crucial, Russia’s war is simultaneously an assault on a democratic Ukraine, whose citizens had twice, in 2004 and 2014, taken to the streets to overturn their oligarchic, pro-Kremlin, and corrupt leaders. Should the US and Russia pressure Ukraine into holding elections, European support will be vital to guarantee the integrity of the electoral process and to counter Vladimir Putin’s pursuits to establish a puppet regime in Kyiv, thereby achieving another of his wartime goals. Such tactics have been clearly evidenced in Moldova, Romania, and Georgia. Supporting a democratic Ukraine, regardless of its territorial situation, would also be a strategic move toward advancing the country’s EU membership aspirations.
