If one ignores the obvious moral fallacy of exerting pressure on the victim of an unjust and unprovoked war of aggression and not the aggressor, the US has several tools available. Trump could employ diplomatic, economic, and military means to get its message across.
Focusing on the latter, the US could have targeted broader military capabilities like its ability to conduct long-range strikes, offensive operations, defensive operations, command and control, sustainability, and more.
The Trump administration could have chosen a “surgical” approach, targeting individual weapon systems, including F16, ATACMS, HIMARS, MLRS, artillery, air defense, MANPADS, armored fighting vehicles, anti-tank weapons, mine clearance systems, intelligence, early warning, and much more.
Stopping only one of them would have left room to increase the pressure on Ukraine—the victim—for alleged “lack of compliance.”
The Trump administration could have chosen a gradual approach. Instead, it cut off all support altogether.
Trump chose “overwhelming force” against a former partner that has contributed with military support to most of the US’ recent military operations. A partner that gave up its nuclear arsenal based on a US promise to support its sovereignty and independence. A country that has protected NATO members when the Alliance – under US leadership – was unable to respond according to its strategic concept. (?)
The US is using brute force against a country that has improved US security by reducing the military power of Russia. A country that wants a just and lasting peace more than anyone else.
The Trump administration has intentionally undermined Ukraine’s ability to defend its cities and stop Russia’s attempt to defeat and subjugate the country.
In contrast, Putin and other Kremlin officials have explicitly rejected making any concessions in future peace negotiations or accepting any US, European, or Ukrainian peace proposals. On 6 March, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs rejected the possibility of a negotiated ceasefire.
There is no evidence that the US is pressuring Putin to compromise, in contrast to the demands placed on Zelenskyy. Trump’s recent message that he is “strongly considering large-scale sanctions and tariffs on Russia until a ceasefire and peace deal with Ukraine is reached” is hollow, given the level of trade between the two countries.
While President Zelenskyy has repeatedly signaled Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate and make concessions, the Trump administration claims that Ukraine – not Russia – does not want peace and has “asked the Ukrainians not to sabotage it.”
Trump’s Russia “reset” hinges on Ukraine’s concessions
Trump’s approach to this war involves a broader strategy. As US Special Representative for Ukraine and Russia Keith Kellogg said, the US needs to “reset relations with Russia” to ensure US national interests. To accept a reset, Putin demands Ukraine.
This is reflected in Trump’s alignment with Putin’s false claims, disinformation, and demands:
- Responsibility for the war. Putin has persistently tried to shift the blame for the full-scale war from Russia to Ukraine. Trump agrees.
- “Proxy War”. Putin has falsely argued that Russia is exposed to a Western proxy war (indirectly implying that Ukraine is not a party to the resolution of the war). Trump has changed the US’s former stand and agrees.
- Blocking Peace. Putin falsely claims Ukraine is blocking a peaceful resolution of the war. Trump agrees.
- Good faith negotiations. Putin says Ukraine is not interested in “good faith negotiations”. Trump agrees.
- Concessions. In conflict with international law, Putin demands that Ukraine must cede Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, the Kherson regions, and Crimea to Russia. Trump agrees.
- NATO membership. Putin demands that Ukraine abandon its goal to join NATO. Trump agrees.
- “Denazification”. Putin demands that Ukraine agree to “denazification” (“regime” change). Trump agrees.
- Sanctions. Putin demands the removal of all Western sanctions against Russia. Trump agrees.
- European security and stability. Putin has categorically excluded European involvement in the negotiations. Trump agrees in principle.
- Demilitarization. Putin demands that Ukraine demilitarize. Trump seems to agree. On 3 March, Trump suspended all US military aid delivery to Ukraine. He has also ordered a stop in intelligence sharing, allegedly to pressure Zelenskyy to make concessions, such as ceding territory to Russia. Trump also wants Zelenskyy to take steps toward elections in Ukraine and possibly step down as president. Seen in context with the US’s reset in the relationship with Russia, however, the halt in support serves a broader strategy.
In his “America First, Russia, and Ukraine” report, Kellogg proposed ending Russia’s diplomatic isolation. (Check) He proposed a ceasefire and peace negotiations facilitated through a mix of incentives and pressure (Check). Russia would be offered to keep the occupied territories and lift sanctions (Check). In addition, Ukrainian NATO membership would be postponed (Check). Russian failure to negotiate would trigger increased US military support for Ukraine. The US would cut off military aid if Ukraine refused to participate in peace talks (Check).
Trump’s envoy, Keith Kellogg, has admitted that the peace plan discussed in Istanbul in March 2022 is “a starting point” for Trump’s vision for peace.
Putin demands – and Trump’s so-called “peace plan” – are tantamount to a Ukrainian capitulation. This would be disastrous for both Ukraine and its European allies.What happens when Ukraine says no
As Politico reported on 21 February, Trump has decided it was time to restore the relationship between the “US president and Putin, a leader subject to US and EU sanctions and an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for crimes against humanity and genocide.” Since his inauguration, President Trump has aligned with Putin 29 times, focusing on closer ties with the Kremlin.
To restart aid and intel to Ukraine, Trump demands Ukrainian concessions. He also wants Zelensky to make some movement toward elections and possibly stepping down as his country’s leader. According to Politico, Trump’s team is even holding secret talks with Zelenskyy’s political opponents, meddling in Ukraine’s democratic processes. Most importantly, Trump will demand that Ukraine accept a so-called “peace plan” based on Putin’s demands.
During the Saudi talks on 11 March, Ukraine will most likely be offered a choice of capitulation (dressed as a “peace plan”) or to continue fighting without US aid.
Zelenskyy will, however, have no other option than to deny Trump’s and Putin’s demands, blocking the former’s visions for “peace” and the latter’s calls for capitulation.Ukraine will reject Trump’s so-called peace plan because it supports Russia’s aim to subjugate Ukraine. A Ukrainian refusal, however, will block Trump’s ambitions of a reset with Russia. His fury will have no limits. There is no reason to believe that the fallout from the meeting will be less dramatic than the disastrous meeting in Washington on 28 February.
The meeting between the US and Ukraine in Saudi Arabia might be pivotal for US-Ukraine-Europe relations.
The US stop in defense aid and intelligence sharing is unlikely to end anytime soon. I desperately hope I am mistaken.
I have previously argued that Trump’s “peace plan” is a blueprint for Russian victory over Ukraine and the West. Unfortunately, recent events might have validated this assessment. This is why my warning that «Europe should be afraid if Putin accepts US-proposed peace plan” has become even more urgent.
This is the moment when Europe—or rather the Coalition of Like-Minded States—must rally behind Zelenskyy and Ukraine. Otherwise, European security will be in extreme danger.
Read more:
- Exclusive: Ukrainian USAID employees receive official layoff notices as US kills 83% of programs
- What Putin knows about Ukraine’s true value that Trump can’t get
- Western hesitation on Ukraine fuels Russian war and risks World War 3
- The only path to real peace in Ukraine lies through Russia’s defeat
