Soon to be cast adrift by President-elect Trump, Ukraine’s likely future is bleak.
Let’s not make it worse by a feckless peace deal
By John Bolton
30 November 2024 6:27pm GMT
Donald Trump’s looming inauguration bodes poorly for vital Western security interests,
and Ukraine in particular. Trump’s hostility to NATO is palpable, and his feelings about
Ukraine follow close behind. After January 20, US military and economic assistance will
likely drop significantly, and negotiations with Russia begin quickly. In turn, European
financial support for Ukraine will diminish, as EU members rush to revive now-defunct
commercial ties with Moscow. Despite contrary press reports, Trump has not yet spoken
to Vladimir Putin. When they do, Trump’s desire to put this “Biden war” behind him
could, at worst, mean capitulation to maximalist Russian demands. After all, if assisting
Ukraine’s defence against unprovoked aggression is unimportant to Washington, why
worry about Kyiv’s terms of surrender?
In fact, core America national interests remain. Since 1945, European peace and
stability have been vital to advancing US economic and political security. The ripple
effects of perceived American and NATO failure in Europe’s centre will embolden
Beijing to act aggressively toward Taiwan and the East China Sea; the South China
Sea; and along its land borders. These aren’t abstract, diaphanous worries at the
periphery of our interests, but hard threats to US physical security, trade, travel and
communications globally.
Biden put these interests at risk by bungling implementation of nearly three years of aid
to Kyiv. He never developed a winning strategy. His administration helped create the
current battlefield gridlock, deterred by constant but idle Kremlin threats of a “wider war.”
Parcelling out weapons only after long public debates prevented their most effective
use. Biden failed to explain clearly Russia’s threat to key Western interests, thereby
fanning the belief there are no such interests, and abetting the Trump-inspired
isolationism spreading nationally.
What to do? Aiding Ukraine is in NATO’s vital interest. That interest does not diminish
because of persistent Biden administration poor performance. Do we ignore the
continuing reality that Russia’s aggression threatens Alliance security? Does Ukraine
simply give way to Trumpian capitulationism?
Certainly not. In the coming negotiations, certain points are essential to any potential
agreement. The following suggestions, which are hardly my preferred outcome, are the
absolute minimum we must obtain. They are only indicative, not exhaustive, and
certainly not NATO’s opening position.
Any agreement must be explicitly provisional to keep Ukraine’s future open. Moscow will
treat any deal that way regardless. For the Kremlin, nothing is permanent until its
empire is fully restored, by their lights. Putin needs time to restore Russia’s military
capabilities, and believing any “commitment” to forswear future aggression against
Ukraine is dreaming.
A ceasefire along existing military frontlines during negotiations may be inevitable.
Nonetheless, we should insist that any ultimate agreement explicitly state that the lines
eventually drawn have no political import whatever, but merely reflect existing military
dispositions. Russia may later disregard such disclaimers, but such claims must be
rendered clearly invalid in advance.
Similarly, the agreement should not create demilitarised zones between Ukrainian and
Russian forces inside Ukraine, or along the two countries’ formal border elsewhere. The
surest way for a ceasefire line to become a permanent border is to make it half-a-mile
wide, extending endlessly through contested territory. A DMZ inures solely to Moscow’s
benefit.
Deployments of UN peacekeepers have an unhappy history of freezing the status quo,
not helping to resolve the underlying conflict. Consider the UN Peacekeeping Force in
Cyprus (UNFICYP) which has partitioned the island since 1964. The UN
Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) has patrolled the Golan Heights since 1974,
and may last forever, but did not prevent Israel from annexing the Golan. The list goes
on. In Ukraine, a disengagement force could mean permanent cession of twenty
percent of Ukraine to Russia.
The problem is not mitigated if the peacekeepers are under NATO rather than UN
auspices. It is not the quality of the military that makes a difference, but the intentions of
the parties to the conflict. Does anyone doubt what Russia’s long-term aims are? Or
Ukraine’s for that matter? My guess is that the Kremlin won’t agree to NATO
peacekeepers anyway, at least not unless augmented by thousands of North Korean
troops.
Finally, Ukraine should not be constrained in its future options to join or cooperate with
NATO. What’s left of Ukraine will still be a sovereign country, striving for representative
government, and free to pick its allies on its own. We should not acquiesce in enforced
neutralisation, what in the Cold War was called “Finlandisation”. Even Finland turned out
not to like it, finally joining NATO in 2023. And if some hardy nations want to provide
security guarantees to Free Ukraine, they should be able to do so, not subject to
Russian vetoes.
Soon to be cast adrift by President-elect Trump, Ukraine’s likely future is bleak. Let’s not
make it worse by a feckless peace deal.
John Bolton served as the United States National Security Advisor
This article was first published in the Telegraph UK on November 30, 2024. Click here to read the original article.