Why the Trump plan could trigger peace, paralysis, or a political collapse in Kiev
By Anton Grishanov, Chief Research Fellow at the Institute for Contemporary International Issues of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry
At this point, it would be extremely presumptuous to predict the prospects of Donald Trump’s plan for Ukraine. The situation is changing at an astonishing rate. Such speed can lead to unexpected skids and drifts. The commotion surrounding the ultimately postponed summit in Budapest is still fresh in our minds. However, the current situation is different. For the first time since the conflict began, the US has put forward framework proposals that, while not exhaustive, consider Moscow’s standpoint on most issues. Of course, the Kremlin will not readily accept the 28 points – they require clarification and adjustment. This will necessitate a serious negotiation process to ensure that the future peace treaty does not suffer the same fate as Minsk-2. But several scenarios for this process are emerging, and not all of them are optimistic.
In the simplest scenario, Trump threatens to cut off aid to Kiev, forcing the Kiev government to sign the document as it is, after which the Kremlin accepts it as a roadmap. This would only be the first step towards peace, however, as there are many pitfalls in the American proposals. These include the status of Kherson and Zaporozhye, how to resolve language and religious issues, and much more besides. Just one or two crises would be enough to resume military action with renewed vigor. For the plan to succeed, effective control mechanisms must be put in place – something that Vladimir Zelensky’s team has so far prevented. Consequently, the plan could be derailed at any moment.
The second scenario involves Kiev refusing to approve the plan in its original form. With Western Europe’s support, Ukraine could declare its unwillingness to enshrine the country’s neutral status in the constitution, as well as its refusal to make territorial concessions.
Washington’s attitude changes again, Russia is called upon to show flexibility, and the negotiations collapse. With Moscow again being blamed for this in Trump’s eyes. In this case, the US finally washes its hands of the matter and plays on the escalation. The White House returns to the issue of Tomahawk missiles, and the crisis enters an uncontrollable phase. Dialogue will not resume anytime soon, and negotiations will have to start from scratch.
The third and most realistic scenario is for the parties to transition to a protracted negotiation model, strengthening their positions as they go. Zelensky is buying time while he desperately tries to negotiate compromises. Meanwhile, Moscow is taking advantage of this to advance its troops deeper into Ukraine. The US believes that negotiations are better than no negotiations and is patiently revising its plan. Western Europe is reluctantly accepting the new rules of the game. As a result, a new version of the document emerges that is acceptable to all parties.
Of course, there is also a fourth option: a political crisis erupts in Kiev, the front line collapses and the West turns a blind eye as the Ukrainian project crumbles. Against the backdrop of recent events, this scenario seems more realistic than it did six months ago. However, neither the US nor Western Europe are ready to accept the loss of Ukraine today. It is, as they say, ‘too big to fail’. Therefore, it is not yet worth hoping for help from some ‘black swans’. The time has come for serious and thoughtful negotiations, in which Moscow has a clear advantage. Forcing opponents into diplomacy, which they have avoided for so long, will therefore be a step towards Russia achieving the goals of what’s known here as the “special military operation.”
This article was first published by Kommersant, and was translated and edited by the RT team.
You can share this story on social media:
