Peace through Surrender?

By Noah Rothman

Wednesday, June 26, 2024

 

Donald Trump has long promised that he would put an end to Russia’s war of conquest in Ukraine “in one day,” but he’s never been fully forthcoming about the details of his magical solution to this exceedingly complex geopolitical crisis. On Tuesday, however, Reuters published the specifics of a proposal circulating among Trump’s advisers that is designed to secure a cease-fire in Ukraine. The report lends credibility to the former president’s fantastical claim. He very well could put an end to Russia’s war in short order, but only by giving Moscow everything it wants.

 

The plan, which is being championed by Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg (retired) and Trump-era National Security Council chief of staff Fred Fleitz, proposes a means by which both Ukraine and Russia would be compelled to consent to an immediate cease-fire “based on prevailing battle lines during peace talks.” Those means include cutting Ukraine off from U.S. support for its defensive war unless it agrees to meaningful talks with Russia. Meanwhile, Russia would be induced to come to the table with the threat that, if it did not, the U.S. would increase its material support for Ukraine.

 

As Reuters notes, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has all but endorsed the terms outlined by Fleitz and Kellogg. “The value of any plan lies in the nuances and in taking into account the real state of affairs on the ground,” Peskov said. “President Putin has repeatedly said that Russia has been and remains open to negotiations, taking into account the real state of affairs on the ground.” Russia is unlikely to believe that it is presently in a position that compels it to negotiate with anyone, and it would certainly never consent to a plan that allows Europe and the U.S. to continue arming Ukraine. But it’s not inconceivable that Russia would agree to a proposal that legitimizes its territorial conquests, with the understanding that it can resume hostilities at a more advantageous time.

 

A cease-fire plan that cedes to Moscow all the territorial gains it has acquired by force is not a threat. Indeed, it would advance Russia’s interests by transforming Ukraine into the recalcitrant party — the obstacle to peace by virtue of its stubborn refusal to consign its people in the occupied territories to subjugation, abuse, and ethnic cleansing. The assumption that such a proposal would be welcomed by Ukrainians is fanciful. Indeed, if the Zelensky government were forced by its allies to surrender to the Russian onslaught, it might not last long.

 

We cannot call it a peace plan. If enacted, the proposal would lend Western legitimacy to one more of Moscow’s “frozen conflicts,” wars that it thaws out at the time and place of its choosing. We can rest assured that once Russia had regrouped and reconstituted its forces amid a ceaseless campaign of probing actions and artillery barrages along the line of contact, it would reopen the front lines once again and swallow up even more Ukrainian territory.

 

The proposal maintains that a more permanent peace would compel Western powers to provide Ukraine with additional security guarantees, but they wouldn’t be worth the paper they were written on. The plan also renders Ukraine’s accession to NATO a dead letter. When, not if, hostilities resume, it would be after Moscow had sufficiently destabilized Ukraine through covert action, energy blackmail, and political warfare. Indeed, Russia could be convinced that the West had lost its stomach for defending Ukraine, leading it to take actions that risk the prospect of a direct confrontation with the West. The risks of a failed cease-fire overture are not limited to its failure alone. It could create the conditions in which Russia miscalculates, leading to far worse circumstances than those that prevail today.

 

If there is value in the Fleitz/Kellogg plan, it is that it acknowledges that the fluid lines of contact on Ukraine’s battlefields are key to peace. The West’s objective, therefore, should be to give Ukraine everything it needs to shift those lines as close to Ukraine’s 2014 borders as possible, thereby increasing leverage of Kyiv and its allies over Russia. To make semi-permanent Moscow’s territorial acquisitions now (despite Russia’s illegal annexation of territory still under Ukrainian control) would be to surrender in the face of aggression — a tactic that is sure to beget more aggression.

 

The Fleitz/Kellogg plan is appeasement — an act of capitulation in the face of naked aggression. It would have a profoundly destabilizing effect on the NATO alliance, sacrifice Ukraine, and send the unmistakable signal to other irridentist powers that it was open season on America’s front-line partners. In short, it is a profoundly foolish plan. We should be grateful it has come to light now despite Trump’s best efforts to keep voters in the dark.