By Marc Champion / Bloomberg Opinion
The U.S. says Ukraine should accept the settlement it has negotiated with Moscow, so everyone can get on with building “a better Ukraine.” That’s the right goal, but if the deal is written as reported, it wouldn’t be achievable.
Although the Trump administration’s proposal hasn’t been published, a report in the Daily Telegraph says it consists of seven main points. The top two are revealing: an immediate ceasefire, followed by direct talks between Moscow and Kyiv.
So, this isn’t the grand peace deal U.S. officials say it is, rather an acceptance of Russian terms for the unconditional ceasefire Donald Trump proposed more than a month ago. Negotiations on a full settlement were supposed to follow, but the administration is so eager to get something done that it appears to have granted most of Russia’s war demands in advance.
These include a guarantee that Ukraine will never join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; that the U.S. will recognize Crimea, which the Kremlin annexed from Ukraine in 2014, as sovereign Russian territory; that President Vladimir Putin’s forces will retain control of virtually all other Ukrainian lands they have seized by force since then; and that the U.S. would lift economic sanctions.
There’s little here for Kyiv, except some minor territorial swaps and permission to access its own rivers. There is, however, a substantial benefit included for Washington, which would gain control over Ukraine’s mineral resources and major infrastructure, together with 50 percent of the revenue they produce. The U.S. would also take control of Ukraine’s massive Enerhodar nuclear plant, currently under Russian occupation.
The issue here isn’t that these are all conditions Ukraine can’t accept. Zelenskiy and other officials in Kyiv understand this war will end with its de facto acceptance of Russian control over swathes of Ukrainian territory. Most European leaders also understand Ukraine won’t be joining NATO. And a deal committing the U.S. to involvement in growing Ukraine’s postwar mining industries and infrastructure would be great, if that also included a commitment to invest.
What’s unacceptable is that core concessions are being handed over to Russia in exchange for nothing more solid than a ceasefire that may not last. Putin’s invasion is being rewarded on the false premise that its conquest of all Ukraine is otherwise inevitable, and that Kyiv and its allies have no cards to play.
So here’s what the deal should include, if it’s to enable the building of a better Ukraine, and not just a stronger Russia:
Top of the list would be clearly defined security guarantees, including a mechanism to ensure a permanent ceasefire. Russia and Ukraine, after all, agreed to halt all fighting in 2014, the result of which was eight years of low-level warfare, followed by a full Russian invasion in 2022. A European “coalition of the willing” has made clear it’s ready to monitor the ceasefire, but only with a U.S. backstop to deter Russian attacks on peacekeepers. There’s no sign of such a U.S. commitment, which needs to be made and spelled out in the deal.
The agreement also should state clearly that Ukraine has the right to arm and defend itself as a sovereign state, thus ruling out Russia’s persistent demand that its neighbor must be demilitarized. Without that and other guarantees, including a clear U.S. willingness to underwrite them, there’s little chance that Ukraine can prosper. Why would any businessperson in their right mind invest in what could quickly be destroyed?
For the same reason, any recognition of Russia’s hold on Crimea needs to be traded for limitations that prevent Putin from again turning it into one giant military base, pointed at Ukraine’s vital ports, shipping, and agricultural heartlands; not to mention other littoral states of the Black Sea. Recognition also needs to be exchanged for Russia’s abandonment of its claims to territories that it hasn’t yet taken.
There also needs to be a remedy to some of the war crimes Russia has committed. The Kremlin can’t be forced to acknowledge its massacres of civilians, but it should at a minimum be made to return abducted children to their Ukrainian families.
If that sounds like a lot, it’s far from an exhaustive list, which is why an unconditional temporary ceasefire was the right idea, making space for protracted talks. But to give away U.S. leverage first, and only then negotiate the security terms needed to ensure that peace lasts makes no sense. In fact, it would deserve pole position in a new book Trump should write in retirement: “The Art of the Terrible Deal.”
Ukraine shouldn’t sign this agreement. The fact Trump has fixated on Zelensky’s statement that Kyiv can’t constitutionally recognize Crimea as Russian — something not required by the proposed agreement — suggests the U.S. president knows this, and is preparing to shift blame for his own failure onto a leader he clearly despises.
As I’ve said before, the way Trump and his envoys have approached a peace settlement in Ukraine seems inexplicable, until one understands that the priority isn’t lasting peace and sovereignty for Kyiv, or stable borders in Europe, but a reset of U.S.-Russia relations. And if Ukraine won’t capitulate, Trump just needs to persuade enough Americans it’s Kyiv’s fault when talks collapse.
Trump has at least two options. He can walk away and fail to deliver the peace he once said he could achieve in a day, or he can recognize the true obstacles to a deal and use the considerable leverage he has to get it done. All signs, unfortunately, point to the first.
Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal. ©2025 Bloomberg L.P., bloomberg.com/opinion.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
