Endgame - Trump's Peace Plan and its Many Conflictions

The sweeping victory of Donald Trump in the US election, taking all 7 swing states and the popular vote against US Vice-President Kamala Harris has startled the situation in Ukraine. In spite of the knife’s edge vote, reactions from around the world, particularly in Kyiv, have indicated concern and surprise. On top of this, the reaction of the two sides to the potential, and realised seismic shift in the US has seen escalation in the War. 

Prior to the election, the movement of thousands of North Korean troops into Russia, likely to go fight in the Kursk region where Ukraine had invaded, had already prophesied a change in the war. 

Following the election victory, despite the dreadful normality of brutal Russian attacks on Ukraine, a huge air attack on Ukraine took place, causing Poland to scramble fighter jets. 

Furthermore, President Joe Biden allowed Ukraine to use American ATACMS missiles to strike Russia on November 17th. The missiles struck Bryansk, a region across the border of Ukraine’s North-East. As of the 20th November, ITV news reported the firing of British Storm Shadow missiles into Russia, particularly Kursk. These aggressive forays deep into Russia are likely intended to ramp up costs at home for Putin, to pressure him as he inches towards encircling Donetsk. Russia’s firing of Intermediate-range ballistic missiles (ICBMs) into Ukraine can sensibly be understood as an attempt by the Kremlin to underline Putin’s nuclear threats in response to Ukraine’s newfound ability to hit Russian soil.

Given this escalating volatility, it is important to consider the approach Trump will look to take. Although predicting the President-elect is a lost cause, the Vice President-elect JD Vance has been more talkative and lucid on this topic, for which journalists are all very grateful.

Having stated on many occasions that he will end the war in 24 hours, even in the time that he awaits his inauguration, Donald Trump has set himself a very ambitious plan. 

As per the Shawn Ryan Show, Vance outlines that the “current line of demarcation, between Russia and Ukraine” becomes a “Demilitarised zone” (DMZ) that is “heavily fortified”. Ukraine retains its “independent sovereignty” whilst Russia gets a guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality when it comes to NATO and finally, that countries like Germany contribute to Ukraine’s reconstruction. Vance claims that the speed at which the deal will be done will become a reality because “the Russians, the Ukrainians and the Europeans are all saying they can’t fight this war forever.” Therefore, Russia would keep the land it has gained, including much of Kherson, Zaporizhzia, Donetsk and Luhansk.

This peace plan is very friendly to Russia and incinerates the last shreds of the Minsk agreement of 1994, where Ukraine handed over its nuclear weapons from the former USSR in return for the guarantee from Russia and the US that it will be safe. From a realist standpoint, this process is the nature of great power politics, whereby great powers give away bits of smaller powers to avoid carnage. 

However, if I may point from a historical perspective to Neville Chamberlain flapping what might as well have been the last of a toilet roll in the air after selling off the Sudetenland of the former Czechoslovakia and proclaiming that he had averted a world war, and assert that these deals don’t last. Indeed, if the 20 year timeframe for Ukraine’s alleged neutrality is true, then in 20 years time, when Russia is, I’m sure, not a vibrant democracy, the meat-grind in Ukraine will continue. The only way to guarantee no more steps across Ukraine is frankly nothing short of NATO protection. 

Zelensky’s ‘victory plan’ is either NATO accession or Ukraine’s independent nuclear deterrent. Given the outright violation of the Minsk agreement, the move to reverse it is more than justified. 

Speaking of nuclear weapons, the use of ICBMs is the physical manifestation of Russia’s nuclear threats, the ICBM is one of the weapons used in a nuclear war scenario, as when loaded with a nuclear warhead, the weapon can strike any city you fancy. However, in a Times Radio interview, Lord Dannatt, former Head of the British Army, argued that Chinese President Xi Jinping has told Putin, “Don’t even think of going nuclear.”

Evidently, there are a lot of conflicting interests at play that will interact with Trump’s peace plan. 

Another one is that the aforementioned firing of ATACMS and Storm Shadows into Ukraine, with the potential use of German Taurus missiles if CDU leader Friedrich Merz is elected in Germany, cannot be a coincidence given Trump’s election. 

From a basic standpoint, it does seem that this move intends to push boundaries and put Ukraine in the best possible position to negotiate. Although, I do not think there will be a grand reduction in Russia’s gains in the 4 mentioned regions that have been swallowed up substantially. It will instead add a new element to the war. Perhaps, Ukraine could ask for the 2014 demarcation lines, where Russia keeps Crimea given its warm-sea ports. 

All these conflictions make the feasibility of any one proposal difficult to ascertain. From the perspective of the ‘the West’, Ukraine is the last hurdle before Russia starts knocking on the Polish door, which is a NATO state. In other words, Ukraine is the last step before a direct confrontation is unavoidable. On the other hand, although I do not associate with this view given its blatant historical fallacies and Putin’s rhetoric about Ukraine and about Poland, Russia, from Vance’s view, doesn't want the war. All Russia wants is Ukraine’s neutrality, given its historical ties to Russia and that it is a part of it, despite the starvation of this ‘part of Russia’ in the 1930s. From the Ukrainian perspective, it is pretty blatant that they are a bargaining chip, lied to and scorched by Russia’s unquestionable dream of peace. 

From this position, I have to say that this conflict will crawl on, unless the proposed DMZ is guarded by NATO, which is a de facto guarantee of NATO’s protection. 

Despite all the challenges the peace plan has to overcome, it is also important to recognise that our utopian perception of a lasting peace is more fantasy than reality. The Northern Ireland peace process wasn’t implemented until a decade after the Good Friday Agreement. To this day, it is still contested given the effects of Brexit. What is clear is that the peace process requires round the clock work by diplomats, as well as healthy dialogue across the divide. Given the use of American money and weapons to supply this war, the West is drawing closer to a direct confrontation, despite Ukraine still standing. Trump and Putin need to sit down together and speak frankly. No long tables, face-to-face. That is the one definite step towards peace that I can see at the moment.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/The Presidential Office of Ukraine

Licence.

No image changes made.