By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A draft proposal by President-elect Donald Trump’s team proposes ending the war in Ukraine by requiring Kyiv to forgo NATO membership for 20 years, freeze current front lines, and establish a demilitarized zone. The plan suggests European allies, not the US or UN, should oversee any ceasefire, while the US would continue military support for Ukraine. It’s unclear how serious this plan is or if Trump will implement it. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have indicated willingness to negotiate, and skepticism surrounding the plan’s legitimacy remains high. Notably, the US under the current administration has been a staunch ally of Ukraine, providing significant aid and emphasizing Kyiv’s sovereignty in any peace talks.
Read the original article here
The Wall Street Journal has reported that a peace plan proposed by the Trump team suggests a 20-year freeze on Ukraine’s NATO bid in exchange for peace. This proposal essentially freezes the current front lines, meaning Ukraine would cede all the territory Russia currently occupies. This would give Russia a significant window to rearm and potentially resume hostilities.
The proposed deal has been met with widespread criticism, with many calling it a “sellout” of Ukraine and a victory for Putin. Critics argue that the plan ignores Russia’s history of breaking agreements and undermines Ukraine’s right to self-defense. They point out that Russia has already broken the Minsk agreements, which were intended to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine, and cannot be trusted to abide by any new agreements.
A significant concern is that the 20-year freeze on Ukraine’s NATO bid would allow Russia to consolidate its gains and undermine Ukraine’s ability to defend itself in the future. The period could be used by Russia to rebuild its military, develop new weapons, and further destabilize the region.
It is also argued that the proposed deal sends a dangerous message to other countries, particularly those facing aggression from authoritarian regimes. If Ukraine is forced to accept such a deal, it sets a precedent for the world that appeasement is the only option when facing aggressive powers. This could lead to a cascade of similar situations where countries are pressured to give up territory or compromise their security in the face of threats.
The proposed deal raises serious concerns about the long-term consequences for Ukraine, its allies, and the international order. It is a plan that prioritizes short-term stability over the fundamental principles of international law and security. The ramifications of such a deal would be felt for years to come and could lead to a more unstable and dangerous world.