OPINION: Ukraine - The Peace Plan

The Daily Mail got there with its scoop revealing what it suggests is Trump’s peace plan for the war in Ukraine - the scoop itself gleaned from the Ukrainian source, Strana (Country).

Keith Kellogg, Trump’s newly appointed special representative for Ukraine peace talks has suggested this week that the Trump peace plan is not yet ready.

The reality though is that the plan revealed in Strana is quite close to the paper jointly written by Kellogg, and Fred Fleitz in April 2024. See below.

https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/america-first-russia-ukraine

Suffice to say, we think the Strana/Daily Mail reveal is quite close to how the Trump team are thinking these things thru. So we think they are credible - Trump, making policy on the hoof, notwithstanding. On the latter we just wonder how far this peace plan will survive first contact between Trump and Putin, especially given Trump’s penchant for ad libbing.

Reviewing some of the key themes from Strana though:

Timeline: Early February a Putin-Zelensky call, leading to a late February head to head meeting, April 20 ceasefire, and May 9 agreement terms released.

The timeline looks ambitious, but with the right pressure from outside parties, including the US, but China, et al, it is possible in my view.

NATO membership - ruled out for Ukraine. Harsh on Ukraine, and a gift to Putin. My personal views is that immediate NATO membership for Ukraine would be the best way to stop the war and to ensure Ukraine’s long term security and sustainability. But the harsh reality for Ukraine is there is entrenched opposition to extending NATO membership to Ukraine in numerous NATO membership states, including the US, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia, et al. None of these states are willing to put their troops’ boots on the ground in the defence of Ukraine. It is therefore just not realistic to try and push the impossible, better to expend energy on deliverables in terms of actually ensuring Ukraine’s security.

Other Topics of Interest

Ukraine Advances 5km Inside Russia, Battles Rages in New Kursk Offensive

Russian milbloggers voiced concerns that continued Ukrainian advances in Kursk could threaten Russian supply lines and rear positions south of Sudzha.

Military support to Ukraine - actually there appears to be a commitment herein from the US to continue to supply military kit to Ukraine. I think this is far more credible/realistic in ensuring Ukraine’s defence. If Ukraine is assured supply of the full range of conventional military kit to defend itself I think it can assure its own security - the evidence is the fact that Ukrainians have held back a far better armed foe, Russia, now for close to three years.

I would call this the State of Israel assurance - giving Ukraine the same access to military tech as what Israel currently gets from the US. Russia will obvioualy aim to set limits on Ukraine’s military capability as Putin will want the option of invading again in the future. This will be a key battle in negotiations, and could ultimately determine whether Ukraine has security, and it is sustainable long term. Obviously there is the obvious quewrion of who will pay for the purchase of weapons from the US, for Ukraine, given that Trump has made clear the US will not pay. I assume Europe, and Ukraine, and in a way a big annual military purchase ticket, assuming US jobs, means that Trump will unlikely be unable to say no to providing the required level of military kit to Ukraine.

EU accession for Ukraine by 2030 - realistic and critical in my mind to provide an anchor for reform and investment into Ukraine. Only by assuring a strong economy for Ukraine will it be able to fend off future aggression from Russia.

European funding for reconstruction - estimated at close to $500bn. A $50 billion annual price tag over ten years is more than doable for the $27 trillion European economy albeit this begs the question why Russia is not being made to pay for the aggression. Will Russia be getting the $400 billion of Russian assets immobilised in Western jurisdictions back? And what does this say in terms of the message to aggressors - aggression pays? I would also ask the question as to who is going to pay for all the military equipment the US is going to supply to assure Ukraine’s defence. Likely that could be an additional $25-50bn a year.

Kyiv to withdraw from territory it occupies in Kursk oblast in Russia, and also recognise territory in Ukraine currently illegally annexed by Russia. The plan seems to assume a ceasefire along current lines - aside from the Ukrainian withdrawal from Kursk.

Of all the above it will be incredibly difficult (near political suicide) for any Ukrainian leader to accept the permanent loss of any territory to Russia. De facto yes, de jure almost impossible to do. Ukraine I think will push for a framework of talks over the future status of occupied territories without wanting to accept the loss of any territory formally. The question will also be posed what Ukraine gets for its withdrawal from Kursk oblast - does Russia give back land in Zaporizhiya and Kherson in exchange?

Policing any deal - the proposal is that European states, headed by the UK, provide troops to police the deal, or some demilitarised zone. The US, and NATO itself, will not play a role. This will be hard also to get agreement as Europe, quite literally, lacks the military capability to put the number of troops required on the ground. The UK, for its part has less than 80,000 active soldiers, the smallest number since just prior to WW1. Others that have greater capability, like Poland appear reluctant - Poland’s view is that it is already closer to the Russian front line and it needs all its troops to defend Poland, so how about Western European states stepping up to assure European security.

I would think if the talks are going to stall/fail it will be around the issue of territorial give ups, European troop deployments and also around what military capability Ukraine is assured of - Russia will look to limit the arms supplies to Ukraine as part of any deal, but without NATO membership or other security guarantees Ukraine will see limitations on its future military capability as a make or break issue for talks.

Reprinted from the author’s tashecon blog. See the original here.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.