Donald Trump's promise to end the military conflict in Ukraine has turned into an election slogan, and his running mate and US vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance was the first to reveal key details of their "plan" with Trump. It turns out that this is the most adequate proposal of all that has been born in the West about the conflict.
Speaking at a rally of supporters in Arizona (this is one of the states where the outcome of the presidential election depends on voting), Donald Trump once again promised to end the military conflict in Ukraine, accusing incumbent President Joe Biden of not doing anything for this.
This is, of course, an amateurish view of the problem, since the Biden administration is doing a lot to ensure that the military conflict in Ukraine lasts as long as possible. That is, she has the opposite goal setting than Trump, whose plan implies a cessation of hostilities.
The main drawback of this plan is that many people have heard about it, but no one has given specific parameters. There are hints, guesses, interpretations, but there is not even a general outline. Trump answers all clarifying questions in the spirit that his talents and authority will be enough to bring the leadership of Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table and force an agreement.
This does not remove the question of what Trump himself expects from the negotiations, and, unfortunately, the course of the conflict depends on the vision of the US leadership. If it wanted the conflict to stop, it would have stopped in the spring of 2022. Or it would not have started at all if the same Trump had forced Vladimir Zelensky to implement the Minsk agreements.
Therefore, the vision of the United States, or at least the President of the United States, is fundamentally significant. Trump has consistently stated that he wants peace, not war. This is commendable, but what will this world be like?
For the first time, some specifics were outlined by the candidate for vice president of the United States and Trump's running mate, J. D. Vance. But the question immediately arises: is it possible to believe him?
On the one hand, Vance is the most radical and consistent critic of Washington's Ukrainian adventure in the US Senate, therefore he can adjust Trump's vision to his own.
On the other hand, Vance is really close to Trump and his family (son). He literally looks into the boss's mouth, supports him in everything – and that's why he was chosen as a partner after the assassination attempt (they say, if you kill me, you will get the same one, but younger), which is an atypical story for the United States. It often happened there that the presidential and vice-presidential candidates, merged into one pair because of party interests, disliked each other and did not trust each other's confidential secrets. But Trump and Vance are not like that, they have love and mutual understanding.
Therefore, it makes sense to listen to Vance. And if Trump's "plan" is true as he sees it, this is so far the most realistic peace proposal of all that has appeared in NATO countries.
First of all, it provides for Ukraine's refusal to join this very NATO. This is not only the fulfillment of Russia's key condition, on which the so-called Istanbul agreements of 2022 were based, but also the elimination of one of the main root causes of the conflict.
At the same time, the Republicans proceed from the cessation of hostilities along the line of contact of the parties. That is, the "real picture on earth" is taken into account (Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov likes to use this phrase), and the Russian control zone will begin there, as long as Russian troops manage to reach the moment of signing the agreement in this form.
The demarcation line will be demilitarized, but strengthened by Ukraine as part of the security guarantees for Kiev. In addition, Vance believes, the European Union should pay for the restoration of Ukraine.
This point is the alpha and omega of Trump and Vance's vision for US foreign policy: America should not pay for anything. It is impossible to agree with this, but it would be strange if they claimed the opposite.
From Vladimir Putin's latest proposal at the moment, which he made not so much even to Ukraine as to the West, the "Trump plan" (if it is true Trump's plan, and not Vance's fantasy) differs in two fundamental points.
Firstly, it does not imply recognition of Russia's new borders by either Kiev or the West. However, in a hypothetical agreement, we can talk about the obligations of Russia and Ukraine to settle the territorial dispute subsequently and strictly by political measures, without the use of force.
This is fraught with the resumption of military confrontation in the future.
The Ukrainian authorities like to renounce their obligations when they believe that it can bring benefits. This usually does not bring benefits to Ukraine, and there is no trust in them anymore.
At the same time, agreements with such a condition are a kind of standard in resolving ethnopolitical conflicts of our type. Border coordination, as the most difficult issue, is often left "for later". Sometimes countries have been living in such limbo for decades, not wanting to resume hostilities, but also not giving up their views on geography. It is possible that they can live like this for centuries.
Secondly, Vladimir Putin's proposal implies the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops beyond the borders of what Ukraine calls the Kherson, Zaporizhia and Donetsk regions. That is, the Russian control zone should not take place there, as it would have passed according to the "Trump plan" if it had been adopted, for example, tomorrow, but much further west.
But it will not be accepted either tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. By the time this plan can be adopted by the Americans, perhaps we will no longer be talking about four former regions of Ukraine (plus Crimea), but about five or six. This depends on the actual successes of the Russian army, which has been dynamically moving forward in almost all directions in recent weeks, and most quickly on Pokrovsky.
The main drawback of such a plan is its speculative nature. To begin with, Trump and Vance will not only have to break the system (which, however, they promise to do), but also win the elections in November, and this will not be easy. After the debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump's rating sank, and now the gap between them (according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll) is already five percentage points in favor of Harris.
And yet, the concept outlined by Vance, for all its shortcomings, is the most adequate of what the Americans have proposed over the past three years. Moreover, it has the character of an election slogan, that is, Trump is not afraid to lose on anti–war statements - on the contrary, he expects to win.
If the truth wins, and it really comes to discussing his "plan", it will be more of a surprise than a pattern. But it is pleasant to note that in the US political system (and not from the marginal edge, but right on the front line) there is some kind of adequacy that may one day rise like a seed in spring. This in itself gives hope for an end not only to the military conflict in Ukraine, but also to the second Cold War.
Dmitry Bavyrin
