Trump’s proposal would functionally destroy Ukraine, which would limp away from the deal as a vulnerable rump state, shorn of some 20 percent of its territory and millions of its citizens. It would cede control over its foreign policy by promising never to join NATO—an ironic Russian demand, given how starkly Putin’s invasion has reminded the world why alliances such as NATO must continue to exist. But NATO membership is a distant issue compared with the immediate problem: If Kyiv agrees to Trump’s proposal, whatever is left of the Ukrainian state will soon be an easy target for the Kremlin. Once the Russian economy recovers and Russia’s forces catch their breath, Putin will finish the job of conquering Ukraine with even greater vengeance and violence. Time and space are on Moscow’s side, and Trump intends to give Putin plenty of both.
[Jonathan Chait: The simple explanation for why Trump turned against Ukraine]
The Americans have threatened to walk away from the process if either side refuses Trump’s deal, but no one can believe that this is even a token attempt to pressure Moscow. The White House is aiming its rhetorical fire squarely at Zelensky. Earlier today, Trump ranted at Zelensky on his Truth Social media platform, telling the Ukrainian president that he “can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country. We are very close to a Deal, but the man with ‘no cards to play’ should now, finally, GET IT DONE.” Zelensky, for his part, continues to insist on an “immediate, full, and unconditional cease-fire” before he agrees to further negotiations, a position Trump will likely use as a pretext for abandoning further talks.
Vance, meanwhile, has adopted a classic position of moral equivalence, as if the people shooting at each other—and their reasons for fighting—are indistinguishable. “The only way to really stop the killing,” he said in India today, “is for the armies to both put down their weapons, to freeze this thing, and to get on with the business of actually building a better Russia and a better Ukraine.”
(The vice president might just be toeing Trump’s line, but if his previous statements on international affairs are a guide, he really does seem to have a dismally simplistic understanding of geopolitics. He showcased this strategic shallowness during his embarrassing speech in Munich in February, when he scolded America’s allies about their domestic politics, as if the Europeans were merely a collection of unimportant U.S. congressional delegations.)
We need not invoke World War II comparisons to recognize the moral and political vacuity of the Trump-Vance position. Instead, imagine intervening in other wars of aggression, such as the Korean War in 1950, and telling the embattled southern forces after Pyongyang’s massive invasion that both sides “need to put down their weapons and build a better North and South Korea.” Or perhaps after Iraq attempted to erase Kuwait from the map in 1990, America and the United Nations should have told the states of the Persian Gulf that sometimes countries just disappear, and that both Saddam Hussein’s army and what was left of Kuwait’s forces needed to put their guns down.
Trump is not a fair broker: He is acting as a de facto Russian ally and making demands as Moscow’s proxy. Perhaps Europe and other nations will be able to fill the void left by American cowardice, but no one should blame the Ukrainians if they refuse to bow to Washington’s demand that they accept a grim destiny as Moscow’s newest serfs.
