The editors of the Washington Post are dissatisfied with the peace plan the Trump Administration has been promoting to end Russia’s war against Ukraine:
The Russian military’s deadly missile and drone strikes against Ukrainian civilians on Thursday were brazen — even to President Donald Trump, who has been pushing Ukraine to accept a peace deal favorable to Russia. “Vladimir, STOP!” Trump warned President Vladimir Putin in a social media post.
This should help the U.S. president see why Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky does not want to discuss any peace deal until Russia stops bombarding his country. More important, Trump should reconsider the uneven proposal that he has demanded Zelensky accept. As it stands, the deal would largely reward Putin for his unprovoked war against a smaller neighbor. The battle lines would be frozen in place, meaning Russia would keep control of the nearly 20 percent of Ukrainian territory it seized with its February 2022 invasion — though Ukraine would not formally cede sovereignty. What’s more, the United States would implicitly recognize Putin’s 2014 seizure of Crimea, although Ukraine would not have to do so. Though it’s true that Ukraine should be expected to consider such terms, Russia — the aggressor in this conflict — also needs to make concessions.
They propose their alternative:
In a more perfect world, Trump would then demand that Putin restore Ukraine’s pre-2022 borders by withdrawing Russian troops, end support for the separatist militias operating in Ukraine’s eastern regions, agree to a European military force for monitoring compliance in Ukraine’s border regions, disavow any further territorial claims on Ukraine, agree to pay reparations for the damage to Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, and immediately return all prisoners of war and the Ukrainian children who were illegally abducted into Russia.
Trump could promise that, once all these steps were taken and verified, the United States would begin talks on easing some of the sanctions crippling the Russian economy. This sanctions relief would come in phases, and sanctions would return in the event that Russia violated any part of the peace deal. The International Criminal Court might be persuaded to suspend its indictment of Putin if the Ukrainian children were returned. The United States, Ukraine and Russia could begin talks about the future status of Crimea.
which they concede is a non-starter for Russia.
I would ask the editors a series of questions:
- Is Ukraine in a stronger position now than it was last year at this time?
- Was Ukraine in a stronger position in April 2023 than it was in April 2024?
- Was Ukraine in a stronger position in April 2022 than it was in April 2023?
which I would answer “no”, “no”, and “yes”, respectively. April 2022 was the time of the so-called “Istanbul Communiqué”. In that communiqué US, Ukrainian, and Russian negotiators came up with a framework for negotiations to end the war. They were that Ukraine could apply for EU membership, maintain neutrality, limit the size of its military forces, end its attempts to join NATO, forbid foreign military bases, and Western countries (including the US and UK) would act as guarantors of the agreement. Ultimately, the US and UK persuaded Ukraine to reject the deal. Since then things have only gotten worse for Ukraine.
Although I believe the US should continue to offer military aid to Ukraine, I would suggest that at this point it is very unlikely that Ukraine will be in a better bargaining position in April 2026 than it is now. I would also suggest that Russians’ willingness to put up with a poor economy and with military losses should not be underestimated. Russia has had a lousy economy for most of the last 200 years and the Russians are no strangers to casualties in war (6 million military casualties in World War II, 2 million World War I, 70,000 in the Russo-Japanese War, .5 million in the Crimean War, .5 million in Napoleon’s invasion)
What the US should not do is offer troops. Every wargaming of US-Russian direct conflict has resulted in a nuclear exchange and nuclear war would be disastrous not just for Russia and the United States but for Ukraine as well (Ukraine would likely be the first target).
I’m curious as to why no one is proposing that other countries, say, Poland or the UK provide troops in the war? Are they afraid that would provoke the Russians into using nuclear weapons as much as would the direct involvement of the United States?
In the absence of that I sincerely wish that the WaPo’s editors would offer their plans for concluding the war other than the one they acknowledge is a non-starter.
Over 1,900 Polish troops died in the just ended Kursk operation. Over 900 Lithuanian troops and nearly 200 British troops also died there. All wearing false uniforms.
Trump’s fundamental promise to the American people was no more war, and a quick end to the Ukrainian war. He is in the process of reneging on that promise, and that will destroy his Presidency.
Once again, the Deep State has brought a President to heel. We are ruled by lunatics. Democracy died with John Kennedy.
Pathetic.
Dave Schuler: I would suggest that at this point it is very unlikely that Ukraine will be in a better bargaining position in April 2026 than it is now.
Trump is making Ukraine’s position untenable. The Russians can be forced to withdraw, but only with a united front. Currently, Russia has an advantage because Trump has fractured the Western alliance and essentially aligned the United States with authoritarians, including Putin. Like much of what Trump has done, it’s not clear the damage can be repaired.
Can you specify how Ukraine is going to “force Russia to withdraw”; without a lot more (> 100K) of “Western” (really US) troops doing the fighting and dying?
Ukraine hasn’t won an offensive battle since late 2022 when Russia ordered a partial mobilization; that’s both the “counteroffensive” and Kursk.
There are 3 questions any plan should address. Where is Ukraine going to get the additional men to fight an offensive; what new weapons will these men be armed with and who supplies it; and what new strategy and tactics to overcome the factors that caused the failures of the counteroffensive and Kursk?
CuriousOnlooker: Can you specify how Ukraine is going to “force Russia to withdraw”
The same way the Afghans forced the Soviets to withdraw, or the Vietnamese forced the Americans to withdraw—by making the cost higher than the value of continued occupation. Of course, with the United States siding with Russia, the situation for the Ukrainians is dire.
You didn’t answer all 3 questions. By reference to Afghanistan and Vietnam, I assume you mean a strategy of asymmetric / partisan resistance.
Where is Ukraine going to find all the men to fight a partisan resistance. It won’t be found among the civilians currently living in Russia administered Ukraine; the conflict and war has sorted the population such that only pre-dominantly pro-Russian Russophones have stayed; while pro-Ukrainians have left.
Think about this, why didn’t a violent resistence appear in Crimea / seperatist held Donbas in the 10 years preceding the current war.
The last point is partisan resistance works via convincing the civilian population of “the cost (is) higher than the value of continued occupation”. It isn’t happening in this war in Russia because Russians by and large percieve Russia as under actual attack and Ukraine as an actual threat. Think of Iraq, we got tired of occupying Iraq and withdrew; but ISIS happened and with real actual attacks and threats, we sent troops back and haven’t withdrawn them. That is why attacking Russia in its pre-war boundaries and even invading Russia was so foolish.
Its an interesting idea through. I think partisan warfare could have worked if chosen as a strategy at the beginning of the war; and Ukraine avoided trying to fight Russia toe to toe. But the time for that strategy is well passed.
CuriousOnlooker: Russians by and large percieve Russia as under actual attack and Ukraine as an actual threat.
That’s what the American people were told about Vietnam. They were eventually disabused of the notion.
CuriousOnlooker: Where is Ukraine going to find all the men to fight a partisan resistance.
Ukraine has fought Russia to a standstill. Both countries are bleeding, but Ukraine is fighting on its own soil, knowing that defeat could mean the death and destruction of the Ukrainian people. Outside the oligarchy, most Russians are not nearly so committed—despite the propaganda.
As long as Ukraine has sufficient arms, they can continue to make Russia bleed. However, if the United States were to withdraw support, then an unjust and transitory “peace” will likely follow.
which is why I think the U. S. should continue to support Ukraine.
“As long as Ukraine has sufficient arms, they can continue to make Russia bleed”
Russia is making Ukraine bleed too; and Ukraine is bleeding out quite a bit faster then Russia on account of having 1/4 the population. Ukraine actually can’t continue if it bleeds out and the army collapses. A best guess is such an event is a little less than a year away if the fighting goes at the current rate of intensity.
CuriousOnlooker: Ukraine actually can’t continue if it bleeds out and the army collapses.
The war is strongly tilted towards defense, so Ukraine should be able to continue to hold on as long as they have arms with which to fight. The on-again off-again support from the United States has inflicted substantial damage to the Ukrainian effort, but Ukraine continues to adapt. And the Ukrainians are now the most advanced country in the use of drone warfare.
With the new mineral rights deal, Trump may be more amenable to continued support for the Ukrainians.