Filenews 25 April 2025 - by Marc Champion
The U.S. argues that Ukraine should accept the settlement it has negotiated with Moscow so that everyone can move forward with building "a better Ukraine." It is going to be a right target, but if the content of the agreement is what has been leaked, then it will not be feasible.
Although the Trump administration's proposal has not been published, an article in the Daily Telegraph states that it consists of seven key points. The first two are revealing: an immediate ceasefire, followed by direct talks between Moscow and Kiev.
This is not the major peace deal that U.S. officials are talking about, but rather the acceptance of Russian terms for the unconditional ceasefire proposed by Donald Trump more than a month ago. Negotiations for a full settlement were supposed to follow, but the government is so eager to do something that it seems to have satisfied most of Russia's war demands in advance.
These include a guarantee that Ukraine will never join NATO, that the U.S. will recognize Crimea, which the Kremlin annexed from Ukraine in 2014, as sovereign Russian territory, that President Vladimir Putin's forces will retain control of almost all other Ukrainian territories they have forcibly seized since then; and that the U.S. will lift economic sanctions.
Kiev doesn't have much to gain, except for some small territorial exchanges and permission to access its own rivers. There is, however, a significant benefit for Washington, which will gain control of Ukraine's mineral resources and major infrastructure, along with 50% of the revenue they generate. The U.S. will also take control of Ukraine's massive Enerhodar nuclear power plant, which is currently under Russian occupation.
The issue here is not that all these are conditions that Ukraine cannot accept. Zelensky and other officials in Kiev understand that this war will end with the de facto acceptance of Russian control over parts of Ukrainian territory. Most European leaders also understand that Ukraine will not join NATO. And a deal that would commit the U.S. to participating in the development of Ukraine's postwar mining industry and infrastructure would be great, if it included a commitment to investment.
What is unacceptable is that basic concessions are being made to Russia in exchange for nothing more stable than a ceasefire that may not last. Putin's invasion is rewarded with the false assumption that the conquest of the whole of Ukraine is otherwise inevitable and that Kiev and its allies have no cards to play.
So here's what the agreement must include if it's going to allow the building of a better Ukraine, and not just a stronger Russia:
At the top of the list should be clearly defined security guarantees, including a mechanism to ensure a permanent ceasefire. Russia and Ukraine, after all, agreed to stop hostilities in 2014, resulting in eight years of low-intensity warfare, followed by a full-scale Russian invasion in 2022. A European "alliance of the willing" has made it clear that it is ready to oversee the ceasefire, but only with U.S. support to deter Russian attacks on peacekeepers. There is no indication of such a U.S. commitment, which must be made and written into the agreement.
The agreement should also clearly state that Ukraine has the right to arm and defend itself as a sovereign state, thus precluding Russia's persistent demand that its neighbour be demilitarized. Without these and other guarantees, including a clear U.S. willingness to support them, there is little chance that Ukraine will prosper. Because what entrepreneur who has the brakes intact would invest in something that could quickly be destroyed?
For the same reason, any recognition of Russia's occupation of Crimea will have to be exchanged for restrictions that will prevent Putin from turning it back into a giant military base, targeting Ukraine's vital ports, shipping, and agriculture – not to mention other Black Sea coastal countries. Recognition must also be exchanged for Russia abandoning its claims to territories it has not yet occupied.
There must also be reparation for some of the war crimes that Russia has committed. The Kremlin cannot be forced to recognize the massacres of civilians, but it should at least be forced to return the kidnapped children to their families in Ukraine.
If that sounds like a lot, it's far from an exhaustive list, which is why an unconditional temporary ceasefire was the right idea, creating room for protracted talks. However, handing over the U.S. bargaining chip first and only then negotiating the security conditions needed to ensure that peace lasts makes no sense. That would certainly be in the new book Trump will have to write when he retires: "The Art of Bad Deals."
Ukraine should not sign this agreement. The fact that Trump has focused on Zelensky's statement that Kiev cannot constitutionally recognize Crimea as Russian — which is not required by the proposed agreement — suggests that the U.S. president is aware of this, and is preparing to shift responsibility for his own failure to a leader he clearly despises.
As I've said before, the way Trump and his envoys have approached a peace settlement in Ukraine seems incomprehensible, until one understands that the priority is not lasting peace and Kiev's sovereignty or stable borders in Europe, but the restoration of U.S.-Russian relations. And if Ukraine does not capitulate, Trump just needs to convince enough Americans that Kiev is to blame when the talks collapse.
Trump has at least two options. He can walk away and fail to deliver the peace he once said he could achieve in a day, or he can recognize the real obstacles to a deal and use the significant influence he has to achieve it. Unfortunately, everything points towards the first option.
Rendering – Editing: Lydia Roubopoulou
