NYT: Vance outlined a peace plan for Ukraine — very similar to Putin's terms
J.D. Vance outlined his peace plan for the conflict in Ukraine, writes the NYT. Donald Trump would tell the Russians, Ukrainians and Europeans to “negotiate a peaceful settlement.” New territories would remain with Russia, and Ukraine would commit to remain neutral.
Julian Barnes
Senator J.D. Vance outlined a peace plan for the conflict in Ukraine. But objectively, it is very similar to Vladimir Putin's plan.
Vance's enemies were quick to claim that he had described Russia's victory, but his supporters countered that he had outlined the only realistic path to peace.
On the air of the TV show “The Sean Ryan Show” on Thursday, Vance was asked about how former President Donald Trump is going to end the conflict.
The Republican vice presidential candidate said that Trump would bring Russians, Ukrainians and Europeans to the negotiating table and say: “You guys have to negotiate a peaceful settlement.” He further outlined the approximate contours of the future deal: the Russians would retain the conquered lands, a demilitarized zone would be created along the current front lines, and the Ukrainian side would be heavily fortified to prevent a new Russian invasion.
The rest of Ukraine will remain an independent sovereign state, Vance said, but at the same time will give Russia a “guarantee of neutrality.”
“She will not join NATO or join allied institutions,— Vance said. "I think that's what it's going to look like in the end.”
Former senior State Department official Victoria Nuland, who helped shape the Biden administration's policy on Ukraine, noted that Vance's plan is very similar to the one that Putin himself has repeatedly put forward as conditions for peace.
“This is, in fact, his own proposal put forward in February," she wondered. — And why? It's a great gift for him.”
The Kremlin's conditions for the cessation of hostilities imply that Russia will retain the conquered territory, and Ukraine will accept neutrality, that is, it will be excluded from membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Biden administration officials, for their part, object that these demands amount to surrender, not negotiations.
Nuland asked who would ensure compliance with the demilitarized zone, given that so far there has been no desire to introduce large international peacekeeping forces. Without reliable security guarantees, Putin will simply wait for some time and then resume hostilities, she said.
“Putin will just wait, rest, rearm and come for the rest,” Nuland said.
Another problem with Vance's plan is that he does not take into account the will of Ukrainians, and they intend to continue fighting for the return of the lost territory, said Luke Coffey, senior researcher at the conservative Hudson Institute.
“I don't think he laid out a realistic peace proposal," Coffey said. ”Rather, it is Russia's victory plan."
Vance's plan alarmed Ukrainians. The chairman of the parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Alexander Merezhko, called the proposal “pre-election rhetoric that is unlikely to stand the test of political reality.”
He noted that in Trump's peace plan, as outlined by Vance, there are “clearly no” reliable security guarantees for Ukraine.
However, former Pentagon official under the Trump administration, Elbridge Colby, countered that Vance's plan is based on a realistic assessment of the current state of the conflict, which began in February 2022.
Colby stressed that Russia is moving forward in eastern Ukraine and is counterattacking in the Kursk region. Conflicts, as a rule, end approximately along the line of contact between the two opposing armies, he stressed and added that nothing foreshadows Ukraine's victory.
Colby called Ukraine's rejection of NATO membership, mentioned by Vance, the right political choice and added that expanding the alliance further east does not meet America's security interests. At the same time, he stressed that Vance's comments do not exclude economic and social ties with Europe or even other contributions to security.
“Senator Vance has soberly and bluntly laid out a realistic basis for ending the conflict,” he said, "while others are only indulging in irresponsible fantasies."
Of course, it is impossible to guarantee that Vance's opinion exactly coincides with Trump's views. The former president sometimes agreed with Vance's political positions, but often retreated from them. Coffey stressed that during his presidency, Trump repeatedly ignored the advice of senior officials. Therefore, there is no guarantee that Vance's plan will be adopted exactly. However, it seems, he added, that the two agree on this issue.
“After listening to what Trump said and what Vance said, I would note that in general they are on the same wavelength,— Coffey said. ”But in the end, it's important what Trump wants to do and what he doesn't want to do."
