Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the world
New US defence secretary Pete Hegseth denied on Thursday that the Trump administration’s push for peace talks with Russia’s Vladimir Putin amounted to a “betrayal” of Ukraine. But the fact the question is even being posed tells its own story. Donald Trump’s call with Russia’s leader this week blindsided European capitals, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian leader and US ally. The president’s approach looks alarmingly like a path to the sellout his partners had feared. European leaders must use all means they can to try to talk Trump round to a more robust stance. But they must get their act together, too, in taking control of their own and Ukraine’s defence.
Trump’s 90-minute call to his Russian counterpart was a gift to the Kremlin. It ruptured a three-year effort to isolate a man who many European leaders, and former US president Joe Biden, have called a war criminal. Similarly welcome to Moscow, no doubt, were Hegseth’s comments that Ukrainian membership of Nato or restoring the country’s 2014 borders were unrealistic. These may reflect underlying truths. But ceding two key bargaining chips before negotiations even begin is an odd step for a US president who considers himself a master of the deal.
This raises the spectre of a “bad” peace that hands Moscow much of what it wants. The dangers are acute. It would risk destabilising Ukraine if its citizens and soldiers feel they are being forced into a capitulation. It would embolden Putin, and others, by suggesting military aggression brings rewards. Were the US to impose such a peace, over the heads of Kyiv and European capitals, and then walk away, the transatlantic alliance would be severely undermined — making Putin even more dangerous.
Seeking to persuade the strong-willed Trump to modify his approach may seem a fool’s errand. But there is still time before a Putin meeting for European leaders to use whatever levers they have. They should appeal to Trump’s desire to avoid anything akin to the chaotic US retreat from Afghanistan under Biden, and urge that any Ukraine peace plan must follow several key principles.
First, Ukraine, and European representatives, need to be part of the negotiations from the outset. The goal must be a viable, sovereign, Ukrainian state; Kyiv should not be pushed into compromises that would imperil its survival. Any push for an armistice, moreover, should be backed by the “peace through strength” approach on which Trump campaigned — with the US and EU making clear they are ready to step up military support to Kyiv if Putin is not willing to agree to a just peace.
Western allies of Ukraine should also make the most of the bargaining chips they still have — notably sanctions that Putin is anxious to see lifted. Europe has leverage here since it holds the bulk of frozen Russian assets and is a key Russian market. Europe’s leaders ought to make clear they would not be bound by any promise to ease sanctions made in talks they were not part of — and link any lifting to concessions by Moscow. In terms of outcomes, the final status of any Ukrainian territory left occupied by Russia must be kept open. And if Nato membership for Kyiv is not possible, then equivalent security guarantees, with western soldiers on the ground, must underpin any deal.
Yet it was, in reality, already apparent that Europe would have to provide the bulk of security arrangements for Ukraine. Trump’s comments this week amount to a sharp dig in the ribs for European leaders; a warning that they can dither no longer in efforts to raise defence spending and production and rebuild their forces. The American security umbrella under which they sheltered for decades is no longer watertight. Now they must urgently set about constructing their own.
Read the full article here
