Rewarding Putin's Aggression Would Consign the World to Chronic Warfare
A 'peace' deal without Ukraine or Europe at the table will not stick
Today is the third anniversary of the latest phase of Russia’s invasion of my country, Ukraine. The war started in 2014, of course, with Russia’s occupation of Crimea. But on Feb. 24, 2022, Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale assault which, to date, has resulted in Russia forcibly occupying nearly one-fifth of Ukrainian territory, over 42,000 Ukrainian civilians dead or injured, nearly four million Ukrainians internally displaced from their homes, and nearly seven million more displaced as refugees to other countries.
I wish that U.S. President Donald Trump’s calls for “peace talks” were motivated by these grim statistics, and in the interests of supporting, rather than thwarting, Ukraine’s fight against its formidable invader. But recent developments—like his deeply irresponsible public feud with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whom he called a “dictator”; his phone conversation with Putin, an actual dictator (though not in Trump’s eyes); the U.S. and Russia holding talks in Saudi Arabia without Ukraine’s presence; and Trump’s own remarks blaming Ukraine for starting the war (which he has only partially walked back)—compel me to attribute Trump’s eagerness to conclude this war to his own personal ambitions which, unwittingly or consciously, are aimed at securing an outcome that is favorable to Russia.
President Trump regularly highlights his ability to get Russia to agree to his terms. Last week, as part of his statement in which he put the blame on Ukraine for getting invaded in the first place, he said: “I think I have the power to end this war, and I think it’s going very well.” But so far it seems that Trump’s negotiating power simply involves drawing up terms that fully satisfy Russia’s demands, rewarding it for the unspeakable atrocities it has committed in Ukraine. What’s more, although Russia occupied Crimea during Barack Obama’s presidency, Trump already had an entire term to put an end to the war. Trump likes to remind people that Russia’s full-scale invasion happened in 2022, after he had already left office—but this war of aggression was initiated by Russia in 2014 and further escalated in 2022. It is a lot more convenient for Trump to ignore that, however, because then he’d have to explain why he chose not to call Putin out for the four years he was in office. Why no deal was struck then, even as the war raged on, and the full-on invasion of 2022 became possible.
Now, with more than a decade of revanchist Russian aggression behind us, including, in the last three years, an enormously destructive invasion by the same expansionist dictator, Trump wants a quick end to the war. But in his quest for a fast solution, and because this administration is overly friendly toward authoritarian regimes, Trump has already offered Putin key concessions—like ruling out NATO membership for Ukraine, meaningful security guarantees, and the return of its occupied territories, in whole or in part—even before the start of peace talks.
Trump’s initial ideas for a peace deal are non-starters. Since Feb. 2022, Putin has formalized occupation of four regions in Ukraine through signing accession treaties without having full control of those territories. Any deal that leaves Russia’s theft unchecked would mean that Ukraine has to withdraw from those territories, uproot thousands of people, give up even more of its cities, towns, natural resources, and abandon those who will not be able to move. Trump’s stance essentially legitimizes occupation, signaling to other autocracies with imperialistic ambitions that Russia’s actions are not just acceptable in this new world order but would be affirmatively rewarded when the time comes to draw up a resolution.
Nor are Trump’s ideas for an end to this war the building blocks for a lasting peace. Rather, they are a time bomb pretending to be a ceasefire that will go off once Russia regroups and pulls in more resources from its allies. In the meantime, Ukraine will be further weakened, since this peace arrangement will potentially end all military aid going into the country and possibly disallow it from protecting itself from any further onslaught of missiles and drones. In addition, Russia has a broad range of tools to cause further internal instability in Ukraine through election tampering and fraud, propaganda and misinformation, and bribery. Moreover, the U.S. distancing itself from the “Ukraine issue” will substantially weaken NATO and disrupt partnerships with its closest allies, benefiting Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.
In order for the peace deal to be meaningful and the peace itself to be a lasting one, the deal needs to include mechanisms to enforce it and discourage Russia’s aggression in the future. Otherwise, neither Ukraine nor other neighboring countries will be protected from future attacks. What mechanisms can achieve this? NATO protection, bilateral and multilateral defense treaties, boots on the ground, first peacekeeping and then armies if the border is breached again. So far, none of these are part of the U.S. approach under Trump. At the same time, European countries are going through their own moment of reckoning, being forced to consider what they can bring to the table, with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer assuring that “Britain is ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary.”
It goes without saying that no one wants this war to end more than Ukrainians. Not even President Trump, who seems dead-set on cementing himself in history books as the person who restored peace in Europe and the Middle East. No one has paid a higher price for this war than Ukrainians—in money, livelihood, blood, tears, and friends, families, and communities permanently devastated. We are doing it not for the land or minerals buried in it or out of geopolitical or ideological delusions. We are exercising our right of self-defense and to protect our agency, as in the right to define our own future—as opposed to living as a Russian puppet state or even as the U.S.’s pawn in its efforts to disrupt the Russia-China partnership. Ukrainians have earned their right to have a say in the negotiations—that’s the only way to protect our interests and our future at a time when the American commander-in-chief, breaking from his predecessors, is far friendlier to Russia’s interests. If we are not included, and Trump strikes a deal with Putin, we will have to fend for ourselves and protect our interests and our future by looking for other partners, led by the UK, hopefully.
Our plight should be a wakeup call for Europe—which, like Ukraine, has been cut out of the official “peace” talks in Riyadh—and prod it to take its own defense seriously and insist on having a say in the new security order.
But if the Trump administration rushes into inking a peace deal in which the side aggressed upon is cut out entirely and the aggressor gets everything it wants, it will only play into the hands of China, Iran, and other states with irredentist ambitions. If this sort of deal moves forward, the Trump administration will be basically admitting that it does not care what happens after its term is up.
This fast-tracked, reward-the-aggressor approach to diplomacy will lead to the kinds of disastrous wars, massive loss of life, and political upheaval that the world thought it had moved beyond.
© The UnPopulist, 2025
Follow us on Bluesky, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X.
We welcome your reactions and replies. Please adhere to our comments policy.
 | A guest post by
|
Slava Ukraini!
Very well put. Thank you.