President Trump on Monday touted “big progress” on talks to end the Ukraine war, and Kyiv is doubtless willing to make painful concessions to avoid surrender or U.S. abandonment.
No one wants the war to end more than the Ukrainians who are fighting and dying.
But the crucial issue continues to be what kind of peace? So it’s worth describing the conditions that would create a peace with honor in Ukraine and deter a new war whenever Vladimir Putin chooses to invade again.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday described the U.S. peace offer as a “living, breathing document,” and we welcome the red pen to the original 28-point plan that bent hard toward Vladimir Putin.
That document would leave a neutered Ukraine that is banned from associating with Western security institutions and vulnerable to a new invasion.
The overriding goal of any peace is letting Ukraine survive as an independent nation that can determine its own future. If its people want to align with Russia, so be it. But every indication is that they want to align with the West, including the European Union and NATO.
This means a sovereign Ukraine with the means to defend itself militarily.
How to do that should be Ukraine’s prerogative, and not subject to a U.S., much less a Russian, veto.
Ukraine will need guarantees of premiere Western firepower, including an arsenal of long-range weapons such as Tomahawk cruise missiles that can reach into Russia and deter Mr. Putin from restarting his conquest.
A peace that welcomes Ukraine into NATO may be untenable today, and Mr. Putin knows Ukraine isn’t close to joining anyway. But sovereignty means more than a spot on the map that says Ukraine.
If NATO membership is ruled out for now, it shouldn’t be for all time. And if it is ruled out, Ukraine will need security guarantees that are more than paper promises.
All the more so if it is being asked to cede the entire Donbas region, including areas Russia doesn’t hold now. The original Trump plan mentions a vague American security guarantee, but Kyiv would be unwise to rely on the U.S. alone, especially with the emerging isolationist forces in both political parties.
A credible guarantee would have to come from a complement of countries in the West, and include Western troops at least training in Ukraine.
Yet the draft deal bans troops operating under NATO’s banner in Ukraine. The case for the ban is that Mr. Putin won’t accept such troops, which may be true.
But that should tell the U.S. Administration that it is currently pressuring the wrong negotiating party.
The Administration’s realpolitik case for tilting toward Russia is that Ukraine is losing the war.
