Soon to be cast adrift by President-elect Trump, Ukraine’s likely future is bleak. Let’s not make it worse by a feckless peace deal
John Bolton 30 November 2024
Donald Trump’s looming inauguration bodes poorly for vital Western security interests, and Ukraine in particular. Trump’s hostility to NATO is palpable, and his feelings about Ukraine follow close behind. After January 20, US military and economic assistance will likely drop significantly, and negotiations with Russia begin quickly. In turn, European financial support for Ukraine will diminish, as EU members rush to revive now-defunct commercial ties with Moscow. Despite contrary press reports, Trump has not yet spoken to Vladimir Putin. When they do, Trump’s desire to put this “Biden war” behind him could, at worst, mean capitulation to maximalist Russian demands. After all, if assisting Ukraine’s defence against unprovoked aggression is unimportant to Washington, why worry about Kyiv’s terms of surrender?
In fact, core America national interests remain. Since 1945, European peace and stability have been vital to advancing US economic and political security. The ripple effects of perceived American and NATO failure in Europe’s centre will embolden Beijing to act aggressively toward Taiwan and the East China Sea; the South China Sea; and along its land borders. These aren’t abstract, diaphanous worries at the periphery of our interests, but hard threats to US physical security, trade, travel and communications globally.
Biden put these interests at risk by bungling implementation of nearly three years of aid to Kyiv. He never developed a winning strategy. His administration helped create the current battlefield gridlock, deterred by constant but idle Kremlin threats of a “wider war.” Parcelling out weapons only after long public debates prevented their most effective use. Biden failed to explain clearly Russia’s threat to key Western interests, thereby fanning the belief there are no such interests, and abetting the Trump-inspired isolationism spreading nationally.
What to do? Aiding Ukraine is in NATO’s vital interest. That interest does not diminish because of persistent Biden administration poor performance. Do we ignore the continuing reality that Russia’s aggression threatens Alliance security? Does Ukraine simply give way to Trumpian capitulationism?
Certainly not. In the coming negotiations, certain points are essential to any potential agreement. The following suggestions, which are hardly my preferred outcome, are the absolute minimum we must obtain. They are only indicative, not exhaustive, and certainly not NATO’s opening position.
Any agreement must be explicitly provisional to keep Ukraine’s future open. Moscow will treat any deal that way regardless. For the Kremlin, nothing is permanent until its empire is fully restored, by their lights. Putin needs time to restore Russia’s military capabilities, and believing any “commitment” to forswear future aggression against Ukraine is dreaming.
A ceasefire along existing military frontlines during negotiations may be inevitable. Nonetheless, we should insist that any ultimate agreement explicitly state that the lines eventually drawn have no political import whatever, but merely reflect existing military dispositions. Russia may later disregard such disclaimers, but such claims must be rendered clearly invalid in advance.
Similarly, the agreement should not create demilitarised zones between Ukrainian and Russian forces inside Ukraine, or along the two countries’ formal border elsewhere. The surest way for a ceasefire line to become a permanent border is to make it half-a-mile wide, extending endlessly through contested territory. A DMZ inures solely to Moscow’s benefit.
Deployments of UN peacekeepers have an unhappy history of freezing the status quo, not helping to resolve the underlying conflict. Consider the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) which has partitioned the island since 1964. The UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) has patrolled the Golan Heights since 1974, and may last forever, but did not prevent Israel from annexing the Golan. The list goes on. In Ukraine, a disengagement force could mean permanent cession of twenty percent of Ukraine to Russia.
The problem is not mitigated if the peacekeepers are under NATO rather than UN auspices. It is not the quality of the military that makes a difference, but the intentions of the parties to the conflict. Does anyone doubt what Russia’s long-term aims are? Or Ukraine’s for that matter? My guess is that the Kremlin won’t agree to NATO peacekeepers anyway, at least not unless augmented by thousands of North Korean troops.
Finally, Ukraine should not be constrained in its future options to join or cooperate with NATO. What’s left of Ukraine will still be a sovereign country, striving for representative government, and free to pick its allies on its own. We should not acquiesce in enforced neutralisation, what in the Cold War was called “Finlandisation”. Even Finland turned out not to like it, finally joining NATO in 2023. And if some hardy nations want to provide security guarantees to Free Ukraine, they should be able to do so, not subject to Russian vetoes.
Soon to be cast adrift by President-elect Trump, Ukraine’s likely future is bleak. Let’s not make it worse by a feckless peace deal.
John Bolton served as the United States National Security Advisor
OpEds from John Bolton are always swamped with magaputler shitheads whose love of putler is matched only by their hatred of Zelenskyy and Ukraine. The following ones aren’t too extreme, apart from one kremtroll:
Simon Love
‘Aiding Ukraine is in NATO’s vital interest’ – Well if NATO had responded to Zelensky’s request for support in the first place, then when the Russian Army was massing on Ukraine’s borders, Putin would never have invaded in the first place, but they didn’t claiming since Ukraine was not part of NATO, there’s nothing NATO could do to help – What total BS!!! Trump would’ve acted unilaterally to get around any bureaucratic BS…
Kremtroll alert :
Mr Rab
Russia is winning, they have the upper hand, any deal they agree to will have to include Ukraine remaining neutral and not joining NATO. There is no way they will give up the four annexed regions and they will also want recognition for Crimea. These are all red lines for Russia its the only deal they will take. The sad thing is, this deal was available 3 weeks into the war (apart from Russia wanted independence for the 4 regions before they annexed them) and Putin said so. The deal could have been done then or even before Russia went in as part of the Minsk agreement and we wouldn’t have 500,000 poor dead Ukrainians.
Martyn Edwards
Reply to Mr Rab
Were you aware that only 10 UN members recognised the accession of Crimea to Russia?
All the normal suspects of course, anti-democratic hell holes:
Armenia, Bolivia, Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, Venezela, Zimbabwe.
These states are hardly a recommendation for probity and integrity.
Ukrainian dead number 100,000 incidentally, about half the number of Russian dead.
Why do you write as if Russia is a cohesive unit, because it certainly isn’t. About 50% ofthe population are vehemently against the war, and this number will, no doubt be increased greatly by the imminent collapse of the Russian economy.
That you are Russian or have Russian sympathies is clear, not that your sympathies are substantiated.
Gerald Goldie
Perhaps the British and Europeans should be putting more effort and resources into defence and less into benefits and accommodating migrants. Putin sees Europe as a soft target, which it is. Trump is asking why America should have to pay for and cover Europe’s defence when it is not doing so itself.
Commenter’s name lost
Trump held an international press conference with Putin and told the world he believed Putin over the US intelligence services — not because there was any rational reason to do so, but because Putin told Trump what he wanted to hear and the intelligence services wouldn’t. Trump is a clear security risk. He is a security threat to the United States. The Russian intelligence services must think all their Christmases have come at once. Having Trump back in the White House is a massive boost for Russia.
John made an error (or perhaps a typo) concerning Cyprus. The partition took place in 1974, not 1964.
There are few, if any parallels with Cyprus and Ukraine. What people forget is that it was Greece, not Turkey, that was the aggressor. Greece was ruled by a fascist junta that sought “Enosis”; the union of Cyprus with Greece. They invaded Cyprus and immediately started committing atrocities against Turkish Cypriots, which led to the Turks annexing the north.
The British sovereign bases in Cyprus could hardly be seen to take sides against two Nato members, so were ordered to stand down. They could not defend the interests of an invading fascist power under any circumstances.
That said, the Turkish Cypriots offered to reunite with Cyprus. The Cypriots agreed, but only if all the Turks who settled in the so-called “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” after the invasion would leave. They refused and so the stalemate was consolidated.
When God willing, Crimea returns to its rightful owners, all the putinaZis who came from 2014 onwards MUST leave.
The future for Crimea could look like this :
An autonomous region within Ukraine ruled jointly by the indigenous Tatars and Ukrainians, with a joint Ukraine-Turkey base in Sevastopol.
The future for Crimea could look like this :
An autonomous region within Ukraine ruled jointly by the indigenous Tatars and Ukrainians, with a joint Ukraine-Turkey base in Sevastopol.
Fuck that Scradge, we already tried it with the moskali and look what happened!
I think it should be a long, long time until Ukraine trusts anyone enough to allow an ‘occupation’ of any property or territory.
It’s a viable solution. I’d rather that Ukraine takes it all back with military power, but with the advent of Trump, it’s now very unlikely. That’s why it would be helpful to involve the Turks, whose clear position is that Crimea belongs to Ukraine.
Better than having such a beautiful place crawling with vermin as it is now.
If you have a better, workable option, please set it out.
I have plenty of viable alternatives Scradge, none of them sane or realistic sadly!
The collective West did nothing much to stop those dark times from coming. There was never a blueprint on how to operate in this war, how Ukraine should be properly supported, what weapons should be given, what a victory should look like, or what consequences mafia land should suffer. Sanctions were weak and full of holes, and there was never a rock solid effort to pursue sanction circumventions. And, real unity during the entire war never materialized. There simply was no strategy, no tactics, and no plans.
What happened instead was a conglomerate of independent nations handing over a few of this and a few of that. Lots of military items were refused, to this day, and some of those that Ukraine were given had strings attached. Not a single NATO soldier ever set foot in Ukraine, even after the norks got involved. NATO was not even willing to help protect its own airspace, let alone Ukraine’s western skies.
It’s hard to make worse mistakes than what the collective West had achieved. The people of the free world should shiver with fear. Not so much from looming war with mafia land or the other rogue nations, but from their own painfully inept and cowardly leaders.