Trump’s Peace Plan

It has taken a lot longer than I had hoped, but Trump finally presented a plan for peace between Russia and Ukraine. I am happy with it, as it aligns pretty closely with what I expected. I thought it would be worth going over some of the points in detail.

The thing that Ukraine and many others don’t like, of course, is the idea that Ukraine will have to give up territory that it still holds in the Donbas region. From what I can tell (e.g., based on this BBC map), this includes a substantial chunk (maybe 25%) of Donetsk. It is perfectly understand that Ukraine does not want to give this up, but it is a relatively small amount of territory compared to what it has lost, and Russia continues to make minor inroads over time. There is the possibility of an uti possidetis treaty where each side just keeps what it already has, but those usually happen when there is no way to reach a broader agreement. This proposal clearly intends to resolve existing conflicts and create a lasting peace.

There is also a provision limiting Ukraine’s army to 600,000 troops. I was not expecting this, but I do not think it matters much. Ukraine’s peacetime army was (by the own assessment) around 250,000 strong, so this is well over what they need to maintain in time of peace. Should they actually go to war with Russia again, obviously they will disregard this limit, and Russia will be powerless to prevent them short of conquering the country. So I don’t see that this is a meaningful restriction, although it is a needless sting to Ukrainian pride.

Ukraine has to make one more major concession, which is that it will not join NATO. This must, in fact, be written into its constitution. I think this was Russia’s major goal in the war, and it probably could have been ended much sooner had Ukraine been willing to make it.

What does Ukraine gain in compensation for these things? The obvious one is a security guarantee. This is left ambiguous in the original list of 28 points, but it is clarified in a separate document that was released later. It states that the U.S. and NATO will regard a Russian attack on Ukraine as a threat to “the transatlantic community” and will respond correspondingly, including with armed force. Although this stops short of guaranteeing military intervention, it comes close, and is much better than the flimsy “guarantee” that Ukraine got when it gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994. We are in a multilateral system, so it matters whether a state can convince others that it is following the law. With an explicit provision allowing American and NATO intervention in Ukraine in the event of war, Putin and subsequent Russian leaders will have to count on this from the start should they invade again. I think this also makes a conventional conflict between NATO and Russia at least a tiny bit less scary. It is frightening now because we have no framework for it, but if the Russians know they have to account for it before invading, they are less likely to reach for the nuclear button if it did happen. Of course, the expectation is that they would not risk an invasion in any case, since they seem likely to stand little chance against a Ukraine bolstered by NATO.

The one thing that concerns me about the security guarantee is that it is only for 10 years. That is a very short period of time in international politics. One could easily imagine Russia simply waiting it out. Even if Putin is not still around (and he may well be), the next Russian president can make similar calculations. The fact that the guarantee can be renewed does not seem sufficient to me. I would prefer a guarantee of 20-25 years. After a generation has passed, attitudes may have changed and the guarantee may cease being useful. In the current situation, I feel like we’ll be negotiating a renewal almost as soon as the peace is signed.

The peace plan calls for Russia to enshrine in law “its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine.” I’m not sure how useful this is. As opposed to a constitutional guarantee, laws can be changed relatively easily, especially in a country where the president dictates policy as in Russia. I don’t think it will hurt, but I don’t think it will be a substantial barrier to future wars.

There are no explicit reparations for Russia’s launching of this aggressive war. However, $100 billion of Russia’s frozen assets will go toward rebuilding Ukraine, which is as good as reparations. Let’s face it, Putin would not agree to explicit reparations, because that would require him to admit that the invasion was wrong. This is Ukraine’s best way of getting something out of it. This is in addition to other international funds (the World Bank is mentioned explicitly) that are to go to redeveloping Ukraine. So they will not be left entirely on their own to bear the costs of the war.

On the whole, I think this peace proposal is both realistic and has a fair chance of deterring Russian aggression in the future. It is not perfect, from Ukraine’s point of view, but it is far better than continuing to fight a losing war that is costing lives and treasure for no apparent benefit. It is also good for the international community. The existence of a war this size is always a danger, because you can never tell when it will expand or change drastically. We have already seen Chechens and North Koreans (Kim Jong Un recently lamented the dead of his nation) involved, and European countries have gradually escalated their aid to Ukraine. We don’t hear much about the Ukraine war now compared to when it started, but it is very much alive and could burst into a wider war at any time. There is also the chance that Russia will achieve a decisive breakthrough, which would be a disaster for Ukrainians and their Western supporters. (There is a non-zero chance that the Russian military will collapse as well. It seems less likely, and would not be much better from an international perspective as it would risk sending a major nuclear power into civil war.)

I am praying that it will succeed.