A halt to the killing in Ukraine is a highly desirable aim. A permanent end to the war would be a truly wonderful achievement. Who would not welcome an agreement that stopped Russia’s daily slaughter of civilians and its destruction of Ukraine’s cities, and which allowed millions of displaced people to return home? But peace at any price is no peace at all, as history shows and we have repeatedly argued here. In his untutored haste, Donald Trump risks rushing into a bad deal with Vladimir Putin that could set the stage for renewed conflict in Ukraine and other vulnerable countries bordering Russia and for an overall weakening of Europe’s security.
The initial 30-day truce under discussion by US and Russian officials reportedly entails a complete halt to fighting and temporary freezing of the frontlines in eastern Ukraine. It provides for the exchange of prisoners of war, release of civilian detainees and return from Russia of abducted Ukrainian children. The truce could be extended. But Russia’s president is adamant that, before it even begins, many complex, longer-term issues must be addressed, including the most fundamental: Ukraine’s future as an independent, sovereign state.
This attempt by Putin to set highly problematic conditions must be firmly resisted by Trump and western leaders. As Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy says, it is a transparent bid to delay and manipulate the negotiations and win broader concessions, while allowing Moscow’s forces time to pursue battlefield gains, notably in Russia’s contested Kursk region. It is not reasonable to insist on a halt to military aid to Kyiv during a truce. Putin’s demand that the historical “root causes” of the conflict be examined is a cynical trap, set to gain wider advantage.
Putin’s tactics are familiar. He raises hopes of a breakthrough, then finds reasons why it must remain elusive. He lies about the situation at the front, as in his false claim that Ukrainian troops are encircled in Kursk. He flatters and plays Trump like a fish on a line, congratulating him for “doing everything” for peace and exploiting the US president’s ego-driven need to keep his promise to end the war. Putin is brutally clear about his war aims: a neutral, disarmed Ukraine led by a Moscow-friendly government. His wider objective is an end to international ostracism, the lifting of sanctions and a remaking of Europe’s security architecture to suit his post-Soviet vision. All this to be achieved by a dramatic reset in US-Russia relations, as gaily offered, inexplicably, by his friend in the White House.
Before making more unforced concessions, Trump should study this threatening agenda. He should remember this war would end today if Putin wished. He should understand Putin does not want peace, he wants victory. He should stop regurgitating Russian propaganda. Most of all, he should stop bullying Zelenskyy and start applying substantial, painful pressure on Russia to stop and reverse its illegal, unjustified invasion. The fact that Trump is unlikely to do any of this goes to the heart of the problems surrounding the talks. For all his self-important bluster and insincere compassion, the “master dealmaker” does not have a plan extending beyond an immediate halt to the gunfire. Putin certainly does.
Trump’s optimism that a good agreement can be reached has little basis in fact. Keir Starmer, at least, is aware of this. He says Putin is not serious about peace and should stop “playing games”. The prime minister’s latest attempt to rally European and other allies around a ceasefire deal backed by credible, in-theatre security guarantees is worthwhile. He spent Saturday discussing his “coalition of the willing” proposal via video conference.
But Starmer surely knows that Trump’s mishandling of the negotiations so far, his daily attempts to win personal credit for imaginary progress, his persistent exclusion of the Ukrainians and his biased pressurising of Kyiv but not Moscow is unlikely to end well. No peacekeeping force, whether under a Nato, EU or UN flag, can be deployed in Ukraine without viable security guarantees, principally from the US – which Trump withholds. Nor can it happen without Putin’s agreement – and he is vehemently opposed.
The evident danger for Britain and Europe is that they may be strong-armed by Washington into endorsing and policing a flawed, short-term ceasefire cooked up by Trump and Putin that does not serve, and potentially undermines, their long-term objective: securing a free, sovereign Ukraine and imposing a cautionary defeat on Russian aggression. Putin says he and Trump will talk again by phone. Who knows what Trump will give away next in his hurry to claim the mantle of Nobel peacemaker, shaft his old foe Zelenskyy and appease his ex-KGB chum?
Trump has already told Ukraine it must accept the loss of occupied territory in the east and Crimea. He has already dashed its Nato membership hopes. He has already cut military aid and intelligence assistance once, refused to guarantee the peace and publicly shamed Zelenskyy in front of the world. And if a ceasefire fails to materialise, even in lopsided form, it’s a safe bet Trump will find a way to blame Kyiv. This man is no honest broker. He is no friend to Ukraine or Europe. Like Putin, he cannot be trusted to build or honour a just and lasting peace. A truce, on fair and reasonable terms that Kyiv can freely accept and that can be adequately monitored and effectively enforced, would be a wonderful first step. In its absence, Ukraine must fight on and Britain, as ever, must support it.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at observer.letters@observer.co.uk
