Analysts have confirmed that the full picture of the peace plan approved by US President Donald Trump between Russia and Ukraine is not yet clear, but the information that has been released reveals provisions that Kiev considers major concessions to Moscow.
In interviews with Al Jazeera Net, analysts said that Trump’s plan includes 28 items, the most prominent of which is preventing Ukraine from joining any Western military alliances, and reducing the size of the Ukrainian army by half, in exchange for American security guarantees, the details of which have not yet been determined.
The information reported by the media indicates that the plan mostly focuses on rearranging the security landscape in Ukraine, prohibiting the possession of long-range weapons or missiles capable of targeting the Russian interior, and also includes establishing Russian control over parts of eastern Ukraine, and treating the Crimean Peninsula as an integral part of Russia.
In return, the plan also talks about the United States’ pledge to sign security agreements with Ukraine to guarantee its independence and territorial integrity, but analysts say that the nature of these guarantees is still undeclared.
Details of Trump’s plan
Commenting on the information leaked to the media about Trump’s peace plan between Russia and Ukraine, UN expert Abdul Hamid Siam believes that the leaked texts from the plan reveal an attempt to impose a new security equation that balances the minimum Ukrainian demands with the maximum Russian conditions, but in its current form it leans more clearly towards the Russian side.
In his statements to Al Jazeera Net, Siam confirms that the provisions related to reducing the army and banning long-range weapons represent a very sensitive issue for Kiev, and that the clause freezing its joining any military alliance practically constitutes closing the door permanently to its membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
The United Nations expert adds that there are items of a political and cultural nature that are no less sensitive, such as recognition of the Russian language and the Russian Orthodox Church, which carry symbolic connotations related to identity and sovereignty.
However, the same spokesman believes that the inclusion of American security agreements – if they are binding and effective – could give Kiev a degree of reassurance, but these guarantees must be accompanied by broad European engagement that links Ukraine’s security with the security of the continent.
As for Russian political analyst Andrei Ontikov, he considers these provisions a practical implementation of Moscow’s demands, which it deems necessary to prevent any future military threat from Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian analyst Volodymyr Chumakov believes that Trump’s plan constitutes an updated version of the Russian conditions that were presented to Washington since the beginning of Trump’s era, considering that any agreement in this form means practically disarming Ukraine before Russia.
Russia’s position on Trump’s plan
The Russian position is expressed by Ontikov, as he considers these provisions to be a practical implementation of Moscow’s demands, which it deems necessary to prevent any future military threat from Ukraine. Therefore, Moscow will support Trump’s plan if it is implemented in its current form, because it gives it permanent control over areas it considers pivotal.
The Russian analyst added – in statements to Al Jazeera Net – that this plan places strict restrictions on the capabilities of the Ukrainian army, and isolates Kiev from NATO. Therefore, he believes that the terms related to the Ukrainian withdrawal from Donbass (the southeastern region of Ukraine) and the reduction in the number of forces and weapons are not negotiating for Moscow, but rather are “existential security conditions.”
However, Siyam points out that Russia will not grant its final approval except after obtaining solid guarantees that prevent Ukraine from breaching these obligations in the future, and that the involvement of the European Union in this agreement may reassure the Kremlin that the settlement will be respected internationally and not just by the United States.
In contrast, Ukrainian analyst Shumakov insists that the mere fact that Moscow is the party most satisfied with the plan is evidence that it is unbalanced and designed to favor one party at the expense of the other.
Ukraine’s position on Trump’s plan
Accordingly, Chumakov himself stresses that Kiev is facing a text that it did not participate in drafting, and it is being asked to accept the reduction of its army, the disarmament of its Western weapons, and the stabilization of its regional losses.
In his statements to Al Jazeera Net, Chumakov says that this brings to mind the experience of the Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for guarantees that seemed strong on paper, but collapsed at the first crisis. Adding that any agreement that does not include a real defense capability is a recipe for a new Russian attack.
The Budapest Convention is an international treaty signed on December 5, 1994 in Budapest Between Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, relating to Ukrainian nuclear disarmament and security guarantees for Ukrainian independence.
These concerns are essentially consistent with what the United Nations expert stated, but he clarifies that Kiev will not have wide leeway to completely reject the plan due to its heavy reliance on American support, which will push it to try to amend some provisions, especially related to the size of the army and the type of weapons.
Siam explains that Ukraine will insist that the European Union be a guarantor party, so that security guarantees do not remain the monopoly of Washington.
As for the Russian analyst, he believes that this rejection – if it continues – will lead to the stagnation of the political track and the return of decisiveness to the battlefield.
Will Trump’s plan succeed in ending the war?
As for the implications of the Trump plan, it is clear that the positions of both parties will be divided regarding it. Ontikov links the success of the plan to Washington’s ability to exert real pressure on Kiev, warning at the same time that failure to do so will keep military operations in place until a settlement is imposed on the ground.
Ukrainian analyst Shumakov rejects this proposal, and considers Trump’s plan a “disguised” political surrender that gives Russia what it could not extract militarily and punishes Ukraine for its steadfastness.
Here comes the position of Abdul Hamid Siam, who adopts a moderate vision based on the principle that any viable peace plan needs a broader umbrella of American-Russian understanding, and that involving the European Union and adding mutual security guarantees, with steps to build confidence such as exchanging prisoners and releasing detainees, may enhance its chances of success.
But at the same time, he warns that the absence of Europe will make the plan fragile and unable to withstand the first test of implementation.
While the plan falters between Russian support and Ukrainian rejection, and the balance of American pressure and European caution, the question remains outstanding: Will Trump’s peace plan with 28 clauses be the basis for arduous negotiations but a solution to a war that has been ongoing since February 2022? Or will it remain an initiative that joins the archive of previous initiatives?