In what should have come as no surprise to anyone – except possibly the Trump Administration – Russian President Vladimir Putin rejected Washington’s latest “peace deal” presented to him in Moscow by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
Not only did he reject the deal, he launched a massive drone attack on Ukraine hours after the two departed back to Washington – foregoing a planned follow-up meeting with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, likely at the request of Putin’s top foreign policy aide, Yuri Ushakov.
While Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov wants the West to believe “it wouldn’t be correct to say Putin rejected the US proposal” – Putin did just that. The Russian 28-point plan authored by Kirill Dmitriev and presented to Ukraine was their “compromise” from what they believed was an agreement reached between President Donald Trump and Putin during their Alaska Summit in August.
They were not points open for discussion; rather, they were conditions passed along to Witkoff to dictate to Ukraine.
Three of the conditions apparently had no room for compromise. According to one Russian official: “There are three pillars on which we will not compromise. One is the territory of Donbas. The second is the limitation of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). The third is the recognition of the territory by the US and Europe.”
On that note – Ukraine and Russia agree, yet for very different reasons. For Russia, they are condition setters for future military operations – to significantly weaken the Ukrainian Armed Forces and create division between Kyiv and their European allies. For Ukraine, it amounts to a potential death sentence.
History has a way of repeating itself – and Ukraine needs to look no further than the outcome of Russia’s war with Chechnya. The loss of the Donbas and its fortress belt would expose Ukraine – specifically the capital city of Kyiv and port city of Odesa – to the inevitable Russian invasion once the Kremlin can reconstitute its military.
Restricting the size of their military, limiting their access to weapons and munitions to defend themselves, and denying NATO support are intended to weaken the AFU. That is the military solution – capitulation – Russia is pursuing while Team Trump pursues economic opportunities – “make money, not war.”
The notable absence of any military advisors – Gen. Dan Caine Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff or Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich – is telling. It is also damning. The outcome of the war in Ukraine has far more future military implications to US national security than it does economic.
The killing stops when Russia stops attacking, not by forcing Ukraine to stop defending.
Despite reports that Trump is seriously considering recognizing the Russian-occupied territories and Crimea as Russia, he does not have that authority. Ironically, his authority is limited to a bill he signed into Public Law 115–44 – Aug. 2, 2017, SEC. 257. Ukrainian Energy Security states:
(a) Statement Of Policy. It is the policy of the United States:
(1) to support the Government of Ukraine in restoring its sovereign and territorial integrity;
(2) to condemn and oppose all of the destabilizing efforts by the Government of the Russian Federation in Ukraine in violation of its obligations and international commitments;
(3) to never recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Government of the Russian Federation or the separation of any portion of Ukrainian territory through the use of military force;
(4) to deter the Government of the Russian Federation from further destabilizing and invading Ukraine.
Ukraine has learned the hard way that nonbinding security guarantees are not worth the paper they are printed on. Handshakes and ceremonial signatures seldom survive continuity of government or changes in national policies over time. Exhibit A, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Unless there is a formal treaty, honoring an agreement that commits a country to action has proven to be wishful thinking.
Furthermore, Europe is distracted with their own Russian aggression – hybrid warfare. That, and European Union/NATO member states the likes of Hungary and Slovakia are actively countering their efforts to support Ukraine in favor of cheap energy.
Unspecified NATO-like security guarantees by the US – dependent upon Ukraine accepting the Russia peace deal – are not the answer either. If these security guarantees, modeled on NATO’s Article 5, commit the US and European allies to treat an attack on Ukraine as an attack on the entire “transatlantic community,” why not just make Ukraine a member state?
Quite frankly, the one security guarantee that deters further Russian aggression is the physical presence of NATO forces in Ukraine. Despite Putin’s threats that Moscow is “ready now” if Europe wants to wage war, the Kremlin can ill-afford to confront NATO forces in Europe let alone in Ukraine.
NATO forces on the opposite side of the border will not deter Putin. He knows the speed of the NATO bureaucracy, their general unwillingness to commit forces to fight for Ukraine, and calculates he would be able to conquer the country and sue for peace before NATO would make the decision to commit troops. That outcome changes if NATO forces are stationed in Ukraine – they stand their ground and fight.
Putin will never accept that condition. That should be enough evidence to convince the Trump Administration that peace is not the Kremlin’s end state. The destruction of Ukraine is, and as Putin stated, Russia is “ready in principle” to “fight to the last Ukrainian.”
The killing stops when Russia stops attacking, not by forcing Ukraine to stop defending. Trump is correct when he says Russian forces lose 7,000 soldiers every week – 355,590 dead and wounded on his watch. The question now is – what is the President prepared to do to get Russia to stop attacking? Giving Russia more time to “review” the proposal, or breaking up the peace deal into four parts, only results in more of the very killings the president repeatedly says he wants to stop.
President Joe Biden’s strategy was to weaken Russia – “to defeat Russia so decisively on the battlefield that it will be deterred from launching such an attack ever again.”
Trump’s “make money, not war” strategy would put money back into Russian coffers, enabling the Kremlin to rebuild the economy and their military, presenting an ongoing threat to Europe’s eastern border for decades.
Washington needs to make a series of hard decisions this week. Will they apply pressure to Russia to get them to stop attacking? Will they consult Europe? Will Generals Caine and Grynkewich be part of the discussion?
Or is Trump content to see Putin win while everyone else loses including Ukraine, the US and our NATO allies?
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
Copyright 2025. Jonathan E. Sweet and Mark C. Toth. All rights reserved.