Trump’s Peace Is No Peace
Trump’s electoral rhetoric on peace in Ukraine is materialising in typical Trump style, albeit beyond his originally proposed one-day deadline. On 12th February 2025, the President announced that he had started conversations with Putin in a bid to bring an end to the war. Yet, despite the prospect of ceasing the death and destruction, it’s not quite what Zelensky, many Ukrainians, or European governments might have hoped. If Trump – as he has suggested he might – pursues a peace deal without Europeans, or even Ukrainians at the table, Ukrainian land will likely be handed to Putin on a platter. Thus, the line in the sand that will supposedly bring peace will only garner further instability, aggression, and imperial lust from the Russian state in the decades to come. Trump’s myopic ‘peace’ agenda thus threatens to wreak havoc on the long-term security of Europe and could be the first step to catastrophe for the sovereign states of Eastern Europe.
The relinquishing of the territories currently occupied by Russia will only serve to embolden Putin’s imperial ambitions, and those of other strongmen around the world. Such a move will signal an unwillingness to protect the state sovereignty of US allies. Without such protections, international disputes and power by force will once again characterise international politics. To believe that Putin’s ambitions for uniting the ‘one people’ of Russia and Ukraine – as he referred to the relationship in his 2021 essay on Russo-Ukrainian relations – ends with securing the five Ukrainian regions currently occupied by Russia, is to ignore the obvious. One need only look to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, in response to which the half-hearted response from the West only served to embolden Putin’s ambitions. Therefore, while a negotiated peace settlement may serve to stall Russia’s advances in Ukraine and bring an end to the brutality of the war there, it will by no means bring lasting peace to Ukraine. Regrouping, reforming, and taking stock, Putin will maximise any post-peace years to formulate a new offensive for Ukraine.
And Putin’s plans for Ukraine are not Europe’s only worry. Russia’s old empire did not end there, and Putin’s nostalgia for its resurrection will see him continue to expand beyond Russia’s borders. Already, his intentions to carve a sphere of influence have become clear in states like Moldova, in which Transnistria remains a hotbed of Russian influence and military presence. A weakened Ukraine would only serve to make Moldova more vulnerable, further destabilising Eastern Europe. Similarly, Georgia, which suffered a Russian invasion in 2008, remains at risk of further territorial encroachments should Putin feel emboldened by a Western retreat.
Further afield, Russia’s aggressive posture will send a clear message to NATO members, particularly the Baltic states. These nations, all former Soviet republics, rightfully fear Russian aggression. Though NATO’s Article 5 guarantees their defence, Trump’s previous questioning of the usefulness of the alliance and his transactional approach to international security raise concerns about whether U.S. commitment to NATO can be relied upon. If Trump’s negotiations with Putin result in a deal that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty, the message to the Baltics will be clear: the West may opt for appeasement over conflict if Russia decides to challenge their independence.
Trump’s policy, if enacted, would not just embolden Russia, but also reverberate across a world increasingly characterised by strongman politics. Xi Jinping will no doubt be watching Trump’s plans for Russia as he closely eyes Taiwan. A U.S. unwillingness to uphold its commitments in Europe would raise doubts about its willingness to stand by allies in Asia, further destabilising the global order. Strongmen elsewhere would also be emboldened, increasingly willing to test the limits of Western resolve, knowing that strategic patience, military aggression, and wartime resilience can yield fruitful territorial and geopolitical gains.
Beyond geopolitics, the economic and humanitarian consequences of such a deal could also be catastrophic. Ukraine’s economy, already battered by war, would struggle to recover if left at the mercy of a Trump-led peace deal. Millions of displaced Ukrainians would be forced to either live under Russian occupation or remain refugees. Additionally, Trump’s ‘payback’ plans for control over heaps of Ukrainian resources could squander any hopes of the country’s effective medium-long term economic recovery.
The idea that Trump’s approach could lead to immediate peace is dangerously short-sighted. A hasty peace that leaves Ukraine weakened and Putin emboldened is not a sustainable peace. It is appeasement, and history has repeatedly shown that appeasement invites aggression, particularly from those of Putin’s ilk. If Trump does wish to end the war and secure lasting peace, any negotiations must ensure that Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity remain intact, that Putin is held accountable for his war of aggression, and that any agreement deters, rather than incentivises, future acts of territorial conquest. Any such resolution, though, requires Ukrainian and European voices to be front and centre of peace talks; they must not be ignored.
All eyes are on Trump. But if history is any guide, the cost of prioritising expedience over principle will be one that Ukraine, Europe, and the world will pay for in the years to come.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/President of the Russian Federation (kremlin.ru)
No image changes made.
Comments