By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Dmitry Kuleba asserts that a potential Trump-brokered peace deal, involving Ukrainian territorial concessions to Russia, is unfeasible. Such a deal would violate Ukraine’s constitution and politically destroy President Zelenskyy. Kuleba highlights Russia’s unwillingness to negotiate in good faith, aiming instead to exhaust the West. He emphasizes that Ukraine’s allies are failing to provide sufficient weaponry, contrasting this with Russia’s access to readily available soldiers. Despite Zelenskyy’s stated desire for a diplomatic solution, a territorial surrender remains impossible.
Read the original article here
Trump can’t deliver a peace deal, says ex-Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba, and the reasons for this skepticism run deep. It’s not simply a matter of differing opinions; the concerns go far beyond personal preference. The perception is that any deal brokered by Trump would heavily favor Russia, effectively rewarding aggression and undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Trump’s past actions and pronouncements fuel these anxieties. His suggestion of increased military aid to Ukraine conditional on Putin’s acceptance of his terms hints at a coercive approach, rather than genuine negotiation aimed at a mutually beneficial resolution. The concern is that any “deal” Trump reaches would be immediately broken, with Russia reaping the rewards while Ukraine suffers further losses.
This perceived bias toward Russia stems from several sources. There’s a widespread belief that Trump harbors a desire to curtail US aid to Ukraine, possibly due to pressure from those he deems his superiors or out of a general disinclination toward foreign entanglements. This would leave Ukraine vulnerable and further empower Russia, a situation considered a catastrophe for Ukraine and deeply unsettling for its allies.
Further fueling distrust, Trump’s negotiation style is seen as fundamentally flawed when applied to a conflict of this magnitude. His past business dealings, including several bankruptcies, don’t inspire confidence in his ability to navigate the complexities of international diplomacy. He’s described by critics as lacking the nuanced understanding necessary to broker a lasting peace that takes into account the immense suffering caused by Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
Moreover, Trump’s previous foreign policy decisions cast a long shadow. His approach to the Afghan negotiations, which included releasing Taliban prisoners before a peace agreement was finalized, is cited as a stark example of prioritizing expediency over long-term stability. This raises serious concerns about whether he would adequately represent Ukraine’s interests or even consider the perspectives of the Ukrainian government and people.
The geopolitical context further complicates matters. Trump’s potential actions are likely to be met with resistance from other NATO allies who are increasingly preparing for a more confrontational stance with Russia. His lack of coordination with these allies would significantly weaken the negotiating position of any proposed deal, potentially leading to a scenario that would severely disadvantage Ukraine.
The possibility that Trump might prioritize ending US involvement in the war over securing a fair and sustainable peace for Ukraine adds to the apprehension. Some fear that a Trump-brokered peace would essentially amount to a Ukrainian surrender, ignoring the immense destruction and loss of life Russia has inflicted. Such a result would contradict the aims of the West in the conflict and severely damage international credibility and trust.
Critics argue that Trump’s actions would be driven not by concern for peace but by domestic political considerations. His negotiating strategies would be heavily influenced by desires to appease his base and bolster his image. This suggests that a successful “peace deal” under Trump might be defined solely by an end to US involvement, regardless of the outcome for Ukraine.
Adding to the complexity, there are concerns that Putin might exploit Trump’s perceived weaknesses. Trump’s potential inability to withstand the pressure from Putin and his lack of diplomatic experience could lead to a deal highly disadvantageous to Ukraine. This scenario could severely damage US standing on the world stage and impact Trump’s domestic political standing.
In the end, the assertion that Trump can’t deliver a peace deal isn’t merely a matter of political opposition. It’s grounded in specific concerns about his track record, negotiation style, understanding of the conflict’s intricacies, and potential political motivations. It’s about the fear of a deal that prioritizes appearances over substance, leading to a settlement that fundamentally undermines Ukraine’s security and ignores the devastating consequences of Russia’s actions. The concern is that any peace achieved through Trump’s efforts would be one of imposed surrender, not one based on mutual respect and lasting stability.