© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Russia President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday that a new 28-point peace plan that has been jointly drafted by Moscow and Washington “could form the basis of a final peace settlement” to end the war in Ukraine.
For Kyiv (and Europe), however, the deal crosses several long-held “red lines”. So even as US President Donald Trump leans heavily on Ukraine to accept the offer, Kyiv is unlikely to acquiesce very easily.
Here are 3 reasons why.
1. The deal effectively recognises Russian control over a fifth of Ukraine
Clause 21(a) states: “Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognised as de facto Russian, including by the United States.”
While this does not satisfy Moscow’s long-standing demand for de jure recognition, Kyiv has long resisted even de facto recognition of Russian control over territories it considers its own. This clause effectively legitimises all territorial gains made by Russia in the course of the war.
And what comes next is worse. “Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarised buffer zone, internationally recognised as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarised zone,” states clause 21(d).
This is, as FT puts it, “the brightest of all red lines” for Kyiv.
Donetsk, an oblast in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, has been at the centre of Russia’s attention since the beginning of the war in 2022. The mineral-rich industrial area with a large ethnic Russian population is strategically vital for both Ukrainian and Russian interest; for the former, perhaps existentially so. Kyiv fears that control over Donetsk would provide Moscow with a springboard for a future offensive, and does not trust Russia to recognise the sanctity of a “demilitarised zone”.
Notably, after three years of fighting, Russia is yet to annex all of Donetsk: according to latest analyses by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Russian forces have occupied more than 75% of the Dontesk oblast. Clause 21(d) thus effectively expects Ukraine to cede unoccupied territory to Moscow, a decision that will be militarily and economically damaging for Kyiv, and politically suicidal for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
2. The deal provides very vague security guarantees for Ukraine
In some ways, the genesis of the Russia-Ukraine conflict can be traced to the issue of security guarantees: Ukraine has long wanted such guarantees from the West (through NATO membership) in the face of adamant Russian resistance.
Both see this issue as existential. For Ukraine, NATO membership is the only credible deterrence against the much stronger Russia, while for Russia, this is a red line that poses a direct threat to its own national security.
As this author had written earlier this year:
“The expansion of NATO presents Russia with a classic “security dilemma”, a situation in which the actions of one state to make itself more secure tends to make another state less secure, and prompts them to respond in ways that result in a spiral of hostility.
“For Russia, securing the more than 2,000-km land and sea border with Ukraine is critical to its national security, and Moscow has been clear that Ukraine joining NATO would be “a declaration of war”.”
The latest peace plan effectively gives in to the Russian position.
Clause (3) states: “It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and NATO will not expand further.” Meanwhile, Clause (5) says that “Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.”
These clauses are vaguely worded, and fall well short of any tangible security guarantee for Ukraine. In fact the entire plan does not have any specifics of what a US security guarantee for Ukraine would look like.
Read alongside clause (7) — “Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.” — as well as clauses 6 (which caps Ukrainian armed forces to 600,000 troops) and 8 (which bars NATO from stationing jets in Ukraine), this is being seen as a capitulation to Moscow.
As one defiant Ukrainian told The New York Times in Kyiv, “For Ukraine, this is a question of ‘to be or not to be.’ It is better to die standing than to die later as a slave,” he said.
3. The deal sets an unwelcome precedent for the future
Clause (26) states: “All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future.”
For Kyiv, which has accused Moscow and its generals of war crimes, this is yet another red line — and one which sets a terrible precedent for the future. In fact, much of the fears regarding the current plan are about what it means for the future.
Ukraine fears that by acceding to Russian demands regarding territory, and by giving Moscow a free-pass for its invasion, the White House would be paving the way for future Russian aggression.
Effectively, the only tangible deterrent that the deal places on Russia is economic. Clause (13) provides details about how “Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy”, including via lifting of current sanctions; any violation of the agreement will be met with a reinstatement of sanctions, clause (27) states. While the economic carrot is a major incentive for Russia to not invade Ukraine, from Kyiv’s perspective, the abysmal failure of sanctions to deter the Russian war economy over the past three years is cause for skepticism regarding the efficacy of this deterrent.
In a sombre 10-minute speech in Kyiv on Friday, Zelenskyy said that his country faced an impossible choice. By rejecting the plan, it would keep its national dignity but doing so would risk losing the US as an important ally in a conflict in which Kyiv is surely not to come out victorious.
“Now the pressure on Ukraine is one of the heaviest,” he said as “an extremely difficult winter” lay ahead. Agreeing to the US-Russia plan could leave Ukraine “without freedom, dignity and justice”, Zelenskyy said. It would also mean believing “someone who has already attacked us twice”, he said, adding that he would never sacrifice Ukraine’s interests or go against its constitution. “We did not betray Ukraine then [in 2022], and we will not do so now,” he declared.
Time will tell whether Zelenskyy and Kyiv can continue to buck American and Russian pressure, or whether it finally accepts defeat.
