Negotiation or Capitulation 2: Ukrainian Boogaloo
Or, How not to negotiate a just and sustainable peace deal in Ukraine.
At about this same time in the early days of the Biden administration, way back in the still-pandemicized year of 2021 (remember that?), I penned an article for this here website, titled Negotiation or Capitulation? The piece, which came out on February 27 of that year, just over a month into what would become the worst presidential term of my lifetime (there’s still time to catch up, Trump fans!), discussed the reopening of diplomatic discussions with Iran over its nuclear program. Biden immediately undid the successful maximum pressure campaign engaged in by the first Trump administration, flattered Iranian pretensions at good faith, and began to immediately assent to key Iranian terms like sanctions relief simply for starting to engage in basic discussions over their malign nuclear ambitions. Over the course of the Biden administration, Tehran was rewarded handsomely, allowing it to rake in billions of dollars to use in its quest for regional hegemony. It was also granted a level of primacy over the traditional allies of America in the Middle East, the Sunni Gulf states and Israel.
And what did Washington get in return? More terrorism financing, more regional instability, more assertive suppression of internal dissent, and more uranium enrichment and ballistic missile construction. Iran became one of Moscow’s key suppliers and allies in its war on Ukraine, providing myriad suicide drones and acting as an important economic and security partner. Tehran surged weapons and funds to its terrorist proxies across the region, from the Houthis in Yemen to Hezbollah in Lebanon. All of this culminated in the atrocities carried out by another Iranian proxy, Hamas, on October 7, 2023. After the barbaric massacres and kidnappings, Iran opened a seven-front war against the Jewish state using the resources it stockpiled over the years of appeasement under Biden. Unfortunately for them, their opponent was more than ready to fight back and has largely crippled the Iranian Axis of Resistance across the Middle East. Still, without the positive gains to Tehran from the years of friendly treatment from Washington, this destructive war may have been avoided or lessened in scope.
Now, under the Biden administration’s successor (and predecessor), we are seeing his horrific Iran strategy replayed in another theater of operations crucial to American interests: Europe.
The Trump administration is taking the same failed approach to its ‘peace’ negotiations in the Russo-Ukrainian War, auguring a terrible future for American interests and security. Instead of working to establish the most durable peace possible – which would entail strengthening the Ukrainian negotiating position to force the malign actor, Russia, to the table – we are appeasing Russia and dramatically undermining Ukraine. Before negotiations even start in earnest, America has surrendered the vast majority of Moscow’s key terms: no NATO membership for Ukraine, no American presence in Ukraine, minimization of Ukraine’s military, legitimization of Russian annexation claims over the territory it has conquered, and sanctions relief verging on full economic partnership.
Those concessions were negotiated entirely over the heads of the leaders in Ukraine, the people actually fighting this war – contrary to many America Firsters, the US is not involved in combat, merely supplying the nation on defense against a mutual enemy. Russia has not made any reciprocal concessions whatsoever, instead ramping up its attacks on Ukraine and refusing to countenance anything other than their maximalist demands. In response, Trump vaguely threatened imposition of nebulous tariffs and sanctions – which Moscow ignored as laughable given the White House’s already-bad record of flip-flopping on trade policy. (As an aside, the joint imposition of tariffs and sanctions is dumb, as the two are almost mutually exclusive. Tariffs are only arguably useful in an environment characterized by bilateral trade, while sanctions are meant to end trade entirely. The president seems to have no idea of how international economics works at all.)
If Russia has only been offered a series of increasingly tasty carrots, Ukraine has been met by a veritable gauntlet of sticks, both rhetorical and practical. Donald Trump and his executive branch lackeys have constantly labeled Ukraine as the bad actor in this war, including blaming Kyiv for starting it. While excusing Russia’s stated war aims of destroying Ukraine as a sovereign polity and incorporating large swathes of it into Russia proper, the White House has also refused to call Vladimir Putin a dictator – instead reserving that epithet for the duly-elected president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Trump’s deeply annoying ‘First Buddy’ Elon Musk has been particularly bad on this issue, repeatedly arguing that Zelenskyy is highly unpopular and must hold an election so he can be replaced by someone who is ‘serious’ about ‘peace’. There are several problems with this false narrative. One is that it is literally illegal for Ukraine to have elections during a period of martial law, which it quite rightly has been under since the Russian invasion three years ago. Ukrainian law forbids such elections, largely out of the inability to hold a truly free and fair contest under the permanent duress of an invasion, given that a million Ukrainians are under arms, several provinces have been taken by Russia, and polling places would be prime targets for Moscow’s weapons. Even opposition politicians argue against holding elections in these trying circumstances. Second, polling conducted in Ukraine (yes, there can be similar issues with that, but it’s the best we have) shows that Zelenskyy is fairly popular, with his approval never having dropped below 50% since the start of the war. Third, the only candidate that would possibly defeat Zelenskyy in an election would be the former general Valeriy Zaluzhny, who is just as hawkish as Zelenskyy, if not more so. There simply is no real appetite in Ukraine for surrender, which is what the Trumpian ‘peace’ plan essentially is.
Another talking point that has gotten serious play revolves around the minerals deal that the White House is trying to get Ukraine to sign on to. That deal, which is basically a way of extorting resources from a beleaguered power as back payment for freely-given military aid, is not particularly good for Ukraine, nor it is useful for America. The vast majority of the rare earth metals that the White House seeks to exploit are currently in Russian-held territory and likely will be non-viable for years, if not decades, to come. Proponents of the deal claim that it provides a form of tacit security guarantee to Ukraine, in that American workers would be endangered if Russia sought to continue the war, but this is patently false. There were upwards of 30,000 Americans living and working in Ukraine before the 2022 invasion and this did nothing to halt Moscow’s advance on Kyiv. Why would a similar number of workers be any sort of deterrent at all? Also, if Putin simply agrees to honor the terms of the mineral deal, what would stop Trump and his ilk from gladly accepting the absorption of Ukraine into Russia? After all, that would allow US companies access to the most usable and prolific minerals reserves currently controlled by Russia, all while tying American economic security to Russia, not Ukraine. No proponent of the deal has ever satisfactorily addressed this concern.
Over the past week, the Trump administration has doubled down on its patently anti-Ukraine approach, turning the merely rhetorical into the dangerously practical. The administration cut off all military aid immediately, even going so far as to stop shipments in transit by turning planes around mid-air and stopping vehicles in their tracks. This is not new aid, but previously-approved aid passed by Congress and already heading to the front lines. Even worse, however, was the fact that the White House also ceased – without warning – all intelligence sharing activities with the Ukrainians. This not only includes signals intelligence intercepts, but the targeting data needed for American-made HIMARS missile batteries and other already-in-use military hardware. It has essentially made those weapons systems unusable on the battlefield, as technological integration is necessary for proper functioning. To top it off, the administration also forced private American companies to instantly end their participation in key contracts with Ukraine. One such supplier, Maxar, which sells commercially-available satellite imaging that Ukraine has relied on for its drone warfare and defensive emplacements, cut off its contract the other day. These moves have dramatically undercut Ukraine’s defense, leading to an inability to protect civilian areas from Russian attack and arguably causing several hundred deaths already.
This is the antithesis of a positive approach to peace in Ukraine. Abetting Moscow’s aims at every stage, while constantly attacking Ukraine rhetorically and abandoning them materially, is no way to get to peace. Russia is the antagonistic actor here. They should be the ones facing paramount American pressure to end their evil campaign of annihilation, not the victim of said campaign. Exerting pressure on our friends in Kyiv may be easier than doing so to Russia, but that is simply no excuse. The American envoy to the region, Keith Kellogg, even claimed that the US and Russia need to “reset relations” to end the war in Ukraine. I don’t know about you, but I’ve heard that one before. Barack Obama called; he wants his foreign policy back. Maybe they can even scrounge up that dumb, misspelled ‘reset’ button somewhere in the depths of Foggy Bottom.
The second- and third-order effects from pushing a capitulationist peace on Kyiv would be enormous – in the worst possible way for American power, alliances, and deterrence across the world. Why would the Taiwanese trust us to help defend them from an expansionist Beijing when we simply turn tail and run from a similar conflict that we aren’t even directly involved in? What are we doing in Ukraine that gives our allies any confidence at all that we will live up to our treaty obligations, much less our other promises? If we are happy to cut off aid, including life-saving intelligence, at the whim of a mercurial president and his lapdog lackey, why should our allies keep buying our weapons systems? If we can and will just turn off American systems when we find it convenient, nobody in their right mind would trust American companies to provide reliable defense technologies. For those who are rightly concerned about the state of the US defense-industrial base, there’s no better way to permanently cripple it than to do something as dumb as this.
The collapse of American credibility will lead to a failure of deterrence in multiple theaters and a major shift in our long-term regional alliances. Any ally worth its salt should pursue nuclear weapons, including Poland, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan; such proliferation would not remain within friendly nations, and the more nations with such weapons, the more likely nuclear use becomes. This is a path to more war, not less. The current world system, based on American deterrent power and strong alliances, has prevented widespread global conflict for 80 years; we throw it away at our peril. And throwing it away for the sole purpose of “owning the libs” – which is what this truly is about: a hatred for Democrats and anything they are even remotely associated with – is perhaps the biggest unforced foreign policy error in American history. This is not statesmanship; it’s weak-kneed isolationist folly that harms our nation’s future security and prosperity. This is what choosing decline looks like.
Yet this disastrously bad policy still has a large number of proponents, and their false arguments in its favor must be addressed.
Some of the defenders of this unabashedly pro-Russia policy hiding under the false guise of neutrality argue that Trump and his team are pulling a Kissingerian play to pry apart the tight Sino-Russian alliance. This is a blatant absurdity. Russia and China have had a “no limits” strategic and economic partnership for nearly a decade now, growing ever closer during that period of time. China has been a major backer of Russia’s war in Ukraine, constantly supported Moscow’s revisionist claims over its near-abroad, and helped Russia evade Western sanctions for years. Both powers are fundamentally aligned on the biggest issue they face: their desire to destroy the US-led world order and replace it with one far more beneficial to their interests in regional hegemony and geopolitical dominance over their neighbors. This is not the 1970s, where Kissinger and Nixon exploited an already-extant Sino-Soviet split (they had just fought actual border skirmishes!), but an attempt to create one out of thin air, contrary to all available evidence of an increasingly-close partnership. For a crew that constantly claims the mantle of ‘realism,’ they seem awfully idealistic about the potential for Russia to be a good faith partner of the United States. Ignoring the obvious reality of Russian enmity (ongoing for about a century now) in order to focus on the exceedingly unlikely potential of Russian amity doesn’t exact scream geopolitical ‘realism’ to me.
Another, slightly more serious, argument is mustered by other defenders of the Trump approach. This is to compare his current negotiating tactics vis a vis Ukraine with the armistice that paused (not ended, as it is still ongoing) the Korean War in 1953. In their telling, President Dwight Eisenhower inherited a difficult war from his predecessor and negotiated over the heads of the South Koreans, namely their leader Syngman Rhee, to impose a peace that has held ever since. They argue that Eisenhower’s statesmanship is a model for what Trump is doing now. This too-pat narrative leaves out some incredibly important context that separates it entirely from the current situation.
First, Eisenhower was generally a supporter of the South Korean forces and the UN intervention to aid them in repelling the North Korean invasion. Second, American troops were directly engaged in combat with North Koreans and Chinese, under the UN command that was led by American generals, making our involvement in a final armistice far more legitimate than with Ukraine, where we are merely one of many suppliers of arms. Third, the Eisenhower administration did not merely ratify Chinese, North Korean, and Soviet terms, but pushed back against them and even, through intermediaries, threatened nuclear use. Fourth, the leader who most aggressively backed the North Korean/Chinese forces, Joseph Stalin, died in early 1953, paving the way for a potential ceasefire. Finally, the end result of the armistice was South Korea being protected by American nuclear weapons and tens of thousands of American troops on the ground, providing a concrete security guarantee. Those troops remain in South Korea, and that nuclear umbrella is still in effect. If Trump wants to force a similar armistice on Ukraine, I’d be all for it, as that would ensure that the remainder of the country would remain free, closely allied with the United States, and backed by the full force of the American military. Clearly, that’s not what is happening here.
So, you may ask, what would a just conclusion to this war look like? I pontificated on this point, and the fact that peace at any price is no peace at all, in a recent piece for Providence Magazine. In addition to the more general outline in that piece, there are a few specifics that should be included in any peace deal.
Ukraine should be able to regain some of the territory taken by Moscow since 2022, likely in the area of Kherson, in exchange for returning the Kursk salient to Russia. Ukraine should not be demilitarized, but allowed to retain a sizable military force to prevent another invasion in a few years’ time. There should be a demilitarized zone that separates Russian-occupied Ukraine from the legitimate state, patrolled by European troops volunteered by their nations – most likely from Britain, France, Poland, and other likeminded governments. Ukraine should recognize that Crimea is Russian territory, but should not be forced to renounce claims to the areas in the mainland of Ukraine that were illegally conquered by Russian forces since 2014. This is important, as it does not ratify the invasion itself and shows a resolve to, eventually, liberate these areas. (Look at how we treated the Baltics during the Cold War; as captive nations, not integral parts of Russia.) Ukraine should be welcomed into the European Union and trade ties with the West should be vastly expanded, including shifting its key sources of energy away from Russia. In the end, Russia will walk away with Crimea, tacit temporary control of eastern Ukraine, a bloody nose, a non-NATO Ukraine, and some sanctions relief. But it will not be in a position to simply restart its invasion just a few years later (as was the case in 2022, following the 2014 incursion).
The MAGA ‘realists’ ask why Russia would accept these somewhat unfavorable terms given the fact that they still retain significant forces in Ukraine and are able to routinely assault it, even in the country’s west. They claim, in the words of Donald Trump, that Russia “holds all the cards” in this situation. What these people forget is that Russia is not the only nuclear superpower that is involved in these negotiations – America is far more powerful, militarily and economically. Via continued support of Ukraine, with stalwart backing of their negotiating position against Russia’s, we can put Moscow on the defensive. They have lost immense manpower and wealth on this quixotic revanchist dream, and we should make sure that they lose even more. Even dictators like Vladimir Putin need to deal with public opinion, and that opinion can sour quickly given the right buttons being pressed. Putin wants and needs a peace as much as Ukraine does. We should make sure that he has to earn it.
The choice here is not the false one presented by Trump backers – nuclear Armageddon or a capitulationist peace. We can achieve a durable peace that safeguards Ukrainian sovereignty and American interests, but we need the political will to do so. Biden did not have it. Trump seems not to, either. We have the whip hand here, but we need to recognize it. Russia is rattling its nuclear saber because it has nothing else and it knows our leaders are weak; it certainly worked for the past 3 years. But if Moscow has a saber, we have a howitzer. America is the world’s preeminent power, with a nuclear arsenal and military force that could have Red Square glowing green in about 30 seconds. Our enemies have far more to fear from us than we do from them. They need to remember that just as we do. Because we don’t take orders from a glorified gas station with nukes; we’re the goddamn United States of America. And we should start acting like it again.