Is Trump's Ukraine plan too easy on Russia?

It isn't: which is why Russia is unlikely to accept it

Oh dear! I’m writing another post about Donald Trump. But I said I would hold fire on British politics until the results of this week’s local elections are in. The papers here in full flow trying to analyse these elections before they happen. A few more days will give us a lot more hard facts to go on. So this time I return to the subject of Ukraine.

Details have been emerging of Mr Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine. It means Russia keeping the ground it now occupies in the four regions it recently formally annexed, but allowing Ukraine to keep the rest (for now). Further, Ukraine would be kept out of NATO. And the US would recognise the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. But there would be no limits to Ukraine’s armed forces, and no regime change. This plan is being heavily criticised as a cave-in to Russia, rewarding it for aggression, and inviting future aggression. I don’t agree.

If the agreement takes this shape, it would amount to a huge compromise by Russia on its war aims. Until now it has insisted on regime change, limiting Ukraine’s army and taking in all four of the Ukrainian provinces, on top of Crimea. The big question for me is whether they will actually agree to the plan, given their apparent strategy of stalling until Mr Trump’s patience runs out, and getting what they want anyway (i.e. lifting of sanctions and a stop to American aid to Ukraine). I still don’t really believe that they will sign up - but what if they do?

Could Ukraine accept? They are not actually being asked to formally cede any of the territories to Russia, if the leaked terms are right - contrary to what many are suggesting. That would be a bit like Northern Ireland used be to the Irish Republic before the Good Friday Agreement, or East Germany to the West before the Berlin Wall came down. The fighting stops, and the chances are that they were going to lose US military support anyway. The fighting may not be going as badly for Ukraine as Trump supporters are suggesting, but the odds of Ukraine driving the Russians out of the territory they have taken within the next two years is surely remote. Ukraine’s current suggested approach is an unconditional ceasefire followed by negotiations on a longer term negotiations; it is hard to see how that would be any better in practical terms, given American impatience to end aid and sanctions.

What are the problems? Russia could resume their attacks once sanctions are lifted. They are quite capable of this - they have as much regard for international agreements as Mr Trump. The Americans would shrug - except that they might have some economic interests that could get messed - that mineral deal, for example. But it would still be hard going for them, and European security guarantees would be worth much more than American ones. Ukraine would not be more disadvantaged than if America walked away now. A further invasion, either of Ukraine or against the Baltic states, would remain a longer term project. Ukraine and its European guarantors would need to prepare themselves for this - but they know that already.

Would Russia’s relative success encourage other military adventures? That cat is already out of the bag. Surely it won’t made other potential trouble-spots, like Korea or Taiwan any less safe. In other countries states do what they want to do regardless. An in any case, in any objective sense Russia’s invasion should be regarded as a failure. They have gained territory, but much of it is in ruins, and without much productive population, and with a massive loss of life and materiel. Ukraine may have lost more - territory as well as the destruction and loss of life - but that does not constitute a Russian victory. Russia wanted a compliant state within the borders of the old Soviet Union - and instead they have helped forge a resistant Ukrainian nation.

And who would win the peace? Russia has managed to sustain the war through heavy repression and state control. The country faces long term demographic problems that the war has exacerbated. The decompression resulting from any peace could be destabilising, as serious questions are asked about what their leadership has achieved. And if the country re-opens itself to the West, that will not get better. While we in Europe must assume that Russia will spend the peace regrouping their armed forces and preparing for the next war, this may be more difficult for Russia that most people think.

So to my eyes the suggested peace terms are not particularly advantageous to Russia. Indeed, if they accept them, they must be more anxious to end the fighting that most commentators, including me, have assumed. It would mark Mr Trump’s only substantive positive achievement in his second term.

More likely the eventual terms will be better for Russia, or the peace attempt fails. Clearly neither side wants to end up getting the blame for that. That seems to be one of the few real negotiating strengths that Mr Trump has. I hope it works.