As Donald Trump’s Thanksgiving Day deadline for a Ukraine peace agreement came and went this week, the Russia expert Mark Galeotti pointed to a telling indicator of how the Kremlin is treating the latest flurry of White House diplomacy. In the government paper Rossiyskaya Gazeta, a foreign policy scholar close to Vladimir Putin’s regime bluntly observed: “As long as hostilities continue, leverage remains. As soon as they cease, Russia finds itself alone (we harbour no illusions) in the face of coordinated political and diplomatic pressure.”
Mr Putin has no interest in a ceasefire followed by talks where Ukraine’s rights as a sovereign nation would be defended and reasserted. He seeks the capitulation and reabsorption of Russia’s neighbour into Moscow’s orbit. Whether that is achieved through battlefield attrition, or through a Trump-backed deal imposed on Ukraine, is a matter of relative indifference. On Thursday, the Russian president reiterated his demand that Ukraine surrender further territory in its east, adding that the alternative would be to lose it through “force of arms”. Once again, he described Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government as “illegitimate”, and questioned the legally binding nature of any future agreement.
The simultaneous assertion that a peace plan discussed by the US and Ukraine this week could “be the basis for future agreements” is therefore as bogus as Mr Putin’s empty praise for Mr Trump’s previous diplomatic efforts. The plan – which emerged as a counter to White House proposals effectively copied and pasted from a Kremlin wishlist – reportedly calls for an end to the fighting as a precondition for talks over territory. This is precisely the route that the Kremlin remains determined to resist. News that Mr Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, has resigned after being placed under investigation by anti-corruption authorities – a damaging development that could scarcely come at a worse moment for Ukraine’s president – makes it still less likely that Mr Putin will be persuaded to make concessions he has never before contemplated.
Mr Trump is being strung along again. But the clear and present danger is that a combination of “peacemaker-in-chief” presidential vanity, a desire to do business with Russia and Mr Zelenskyy’s sudden political vulnerability will tempt him to do Mr Putin’s dirty work for him. After four years of resistance, sacrifice and suffering, Ukraine must not be bullied into a cynical carve-up, which would leave it permanently vulnerable to Russia’s aggression, jeopardise Europe’s future security and inspire authoritarian regimes worldwide.
Responsibility for ensuring this does not happen lies with Europe. Though Russian forces continue to make small, incremental gains in Ukraine’s east, their advance is painfully slow and at enormous cost. By signalling a commitment to provide Kyiv with sufficient financial and military resources to resist in the medium term, European leaders can begin to alter the dynamic of negotiations in the present.
Whether such aid is to come through a “reparations loan” underwritten by frozen Russian assets, from the EU budget, or via common borrowing by member states, must be resolved quickly after months of delay. A signal needs to be sent to both Mr Putin and Mr Trump that Europe will resolutely defend Ukraine’s right to a just peace. As the Kremlin seeks leverage via the killing fields of eastern Ukraine and within the corridors of the White House, Mr Zelenskyy must urgently be given some of his own.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
