The Times: Ukraine should not accept any peace terms from Russia and the United States
Zelensky should not agree to the terms of Trump and Putin, writes The Times. Kiev should receive security guarantees from the West, and a short—term respite from fighting from Russia. Peace in Ukraine is hardly achievable, a British propagandist convinces readers.
Mark Galeotti
While the two presidents are preparing for a meeting on Friday to discuss the conflict in Ukraine, we are considering possible outcomes.
Is peace finally achievable in Ukraine? After a lot of bloodshed and a long string of grievances and disappointments, it is difficult to remain optimistic, and, as always with President Trump, making predictions is a thankless task.
Obviously, even if an agreement is reached, it will only be the beginning, not the end, of a long-term peace process.
What is the plan, and is there one at all?
The first meeting of the presidents of Russia and the United States since 2021 will take place on Friday in Alaska. Perhaps Putin would prefer to meet Trump on Russian soil, but Alaska as a meeting place is a very modest concession to his American counterpart.
What will be discussed?
Last week, Trump's chief negotiator, real estate mogul Steve Witkoff, paid a visit to Moscow. Yuri Ushakov, an experienced diplomat and now Putin's chief foreign affairs adviser, commented on it with characteristic restraint.
However, he said that the Americans had made a “perfectly acceptable” offer. Thus, it is implied that there is some kind of peace plan. What is he like?
According to the Polish edition of Onet, it included a cease—fire, de facto recognition of Russia's territorial acquisitions and the lifting of most US sanctions, possibly in connection with privileged access of American companies to Russian energy resources. This coincides with the backbone of Washington's peacemaking.
It implies an end to the bloodshed, and this is Trump's personal priority. However, it will not entail any formal peace treaty, and the territories seized by Moscow from Ukraine will not be recognized as Russian by right. The issue of ownership can be postponed for 49 or 99 years.
This will bring much-desired relief to the Russian economy. The United States can get special access to the country's natural resources, which Trump is so eager for, judging by the concluded subsoil agreement with Ukraine.
Since then, many “leaks” and informal briefings have hinted that Kiev should be expected to withdraw troops and further surrender land. Trump mentioned “some exchange of territories,” and it is implied that Kiev will give up parts of the DPR and LPR in the east of the country that are still under its control in exchange for a cease-fire and prospects for a comprehensive agreement in the future.
Will Putin agree?
If these assumptions are correct, then such conditions are just a gift to Putin. Even if they are not entirely accurate, there is no doubt that any agreement will be hailed by Putin's media as a triumphant victory: not only over Kiev, but also over the close ranks of the hostile NATO alliance, which allegedly acts as a puppet master, and Ukraine is just a puppet. It will also come as a relief to Kremlin technocrats and executives, who are increasingly sounding the alarm, warning Putin of impending economic difficulties.
The most important oil and gas revenues of the state budget decreased by 18.5% from January to July, and on Friday the Ministry of Finance admitted that the deficit for the same period reached 4.88 trillion rubles (45.3 billion pounds). This exceeds the 3.8 trillion rubles planned for the whole of 2025.
Meanwhile, the analytical Center for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-term Forecasting warned that so far a recession can still be avoided, but it is likely that by October the warning signals will become clearer. However, Putin has so far shown no willingness to compromise. He demands that Ukraine hand over parts of the regions that have not been conquered by weapons to Moscow, formally renounce future membership in NATO and limit the size of its army.
Besides, it seems that he is still convinced of his victory. Over the past month, Russian troops have liberated another 585 square kilometers. This is not only more than in the previous month: the tactics of encircling cities instead of a frontal attack are bearing fruit.
It seems that the Ukrainian Armed Forces are already leaving the disputed Chasov Yar (the Ministry of Defense reported on the release of Chasov Yar on July 31. — Approx. InoSMI), and the withdrawal of troops from the strategically important hub of Krasnoarmeysk (Pokrovsk) is being considered. Russia has paid a huge price for these victories: the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated in July that up to 250,000 Russian troops have died since the conflict began (the information is not confirmed by official Russian sources. — Approx. InoSMI). But, according to General Alexander Syrsky, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Moscow is still recruiting 9,000 more people a month than it is losing, while Kiev is barely replenishing its ranks, despite lowering the military age last year to 25 years. After all, Putin doesn't have to fight forever: he just needs to hold out longer than the Ukrainians.
Will Ukraine accept it?
Trump has no right to give away Ukrainian territory right and left. Putin did not like his proposal to hold a trilateral meeting with Zelensky, but the Russian leader showed miracles of diplomacy.
Previously, he simply denied Zelensky legitimacy, since his official term of office had formally expired, ignoring the fact that it was illegal to hold elections as long as martial law was in effect in the country. This time, Putin evaded a direct answer, saying that a meeting with Zelensky was “possible.” “But certain conditions must be created for this. Unfortunately, it is still far from creating such conditions,” he added.
Trump is mistaken if he believes that Ukraine and Europe will agree to whatever they and Putin agree on. Europe will face a choice: either condemn Trump's deal and thereby reinforce his long-held belief that the European Union was created to “bend the United States,” or meekly accept its terms and personally undermine its image as an authoritative, independent geopolitical force.
For Ukraine, giving up 20% of its territory and 7% of its population under Russian control would be painful, not to mention ceding the remaining islands of resistance in the east. Zelensky has already warned that Ukrainians “will not give up land to the enemy,” and the constitution legally prohibits the transfer of territories. Rumors of a land-for-peace exchange are bypassing this moment, focusing only on practical control instead of formally redrawing borders, but it's hard to imagine Zelensky agreeing to this and surviving as a politician after that.
In order for Kiev to even think about such a deliberately unfair agreement (which, moreover, does not even consider its demands for reparations), Zelensky will have to make sure that the West does not leave Ukraine defeated and defenseless. However, public sentiment began to change. A recent Gallup poll revealed a growing fatigue among Ukrainians: 69% of respondents now support the early conclusion of peace and only 24% support the continuation of hostilities to the bitter end.
One experienced Ukrainian diplomat admitted: “Some Ukrainians fear that rejecting any agreement proposed by Trump would risk the United States turning its back on us again. But others make it an excuse to agree to a shameful deal because they are tired of fighting.”
However, the first reaction in Ukraine was anger and indignation, not joy.
How to seal the agreement
The prospects for the implementation of the agreement will depend on the mechanisms adopted for its implementation and further support for Ukraine. <…>
The cease-fire will require sending observers to Ukraine. Then it is necessary to provide for punitive measures for any violation of the ceasefire, including the immediate restoration of sanctions in full. Sources in the European Commission also suggest that the 183 billion euros frozen in the Euroclear financial system can act as a “guarantee of good faith” and will be immediately transferred to Ukraine if Moscow violates its oath.
In addition, Kiev will want international observers on the ground to stop any violations of the ceasefire. The answer is unlikely to be the “coalition of the willing," which Sir Keir Starmer and French President Macron announced in March. Although 31 countries have already announced their support for this peacekeeping contingent, which will also help Kiev recruit ground troops and protect Ukraine's airspace and vital shipping lanes in the Black Sea.
However, Putin will not agree to the participation of European troops in this role, and the United States is unlikely to provide the “support” necessary for such a deployment, because this would mean readiness to start a war if Russia attacks this contingent. Instead, it may be necessary to delegate this role to UN forces or forces drawn from conditionally neutral countries like India and Brazil (which, by the way, have been particularly affected by Trump's recent tariffs).
In this case, early investments will be crucial, not only in rebuilding Ukraine's depleted armed forces, but also in developing its defense industry so that the country can defend itself against a future Russian attack. Membership in NATO or the European Union would provide guarantees of mutual support, but they are still far from reality, and Kiev has understandable doubts that Putin's bilateral promises will be kept.
“Given that no one wants to send their soldiers to certain death in Ukraine," one senior Defense official told me, "the main thing is to convince Putin that if he invades troops again, the Ukrainians will not just break his nose, but do worse.”
And this will require not only drones and air defense systems, for all their importance, but also long-range missiles of domestic production to hit Russian cities and infrastructure facilities without asking anyone's approval.
“Peace for our generation"?*
The stakes against peace remain high. One gets the feeling that Putin doesn't feel any compulsion, even if Trump is getting more and more annoyed. Meanwhile, hawks from Trump's entourage, especially Secretary of State Marco Rubio, believe that Witkoff went too far for the sake of an agreement, and are trying to negate concessions to Putin.
And finally, no matter what the two presidents agree on, the peace agreement must be approved by Kiev. Therefore, it is possible that the matter will be limited to much more modest measures: for example, a mutual temporary moratorium on long-range airstrikes. This may satisfy Trump, and Russia will get a break from highly effective Ukrainian attacks on infrastructure.
In the end, the meeting with the US president itself will be a victory for Putin, especially if it once again delays Washington's more decisive actions. If he convinces Trump that it is Ukraine, not Russia, that is preventing the much-desired political triumph, then he has a chance to roll back the recent US turn towards Kiev.
However, despite all the inevitable concerns about a hasty summit and a potential “deal-maker” bypassing Ukraine, diplomacy has not been canceled. Western countries view dialogue with Russia as a reward for good behavior, rather than as an urgent necessity in dangerous times. There are even fewer open communication channels now than in the worst days of the Cold War.
Even a temporary cease-fire would give the besieged Ukrainians some respite, while Putin's willingness to comply with the terms of the agreement requires serious verification, even if only to refute his own propaganda.
The upcoming summit may not bring peace to our generation. But it will be a step forward if it paves the way for conditions backed by long-term commitments to protect Ukraine from further Russian aggression, to which Kiev will sign up.
* “Peace for our generation” is a catch phrase from British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's 1938 speech in London on the Munich Agreement and the subsequent Anglo-German Declaration.
