The only way to secure a peace deal is if Trump forces Putin’s hand
4 min read8 min
For there to be any possible chance of a successful peace deal, Trump must put Putin on the spot.
Events have moved so fast that anything written on the Ukraine war risks being out of date within hours.
There is one constant: Ukrainians want and need peace more than anyone, but they cannot sign up to a permanent ceasefire unless they can guarantee their sovereignty and the means of preventing any renewed Russian attack. If a ceasefire risked the eradication of their nation and freedom, they would rightly resist.
Vladimir Putin, however, wants nothing short of complete control of Ukraine. That has been his objective for the past 20 years since the Orange Revolution. He seeks capitulation, the end of armed resistance and the installation of a puppet government, nominally autonomous but anchored to Moscow.
Putin has demanded that Ukraine holds elections before any negotiation; that there should be a change of leadership in Kyiv; and that a peace treaty must precede a ceasefire. These demands are not deliverable.
He will also bid for the immediate lifting of sanctions. More than that, Putin wants recognition of an exclusive Russian “zone of influence”, embracing (at least) the states which comprised the Soviet Union 34 years ago. When he talks about revisiting the “roots of the conflict”, he is calling into question the very foundation of Ukraine as a nation, the break-up of the Soviet Union, the security architecture established in Europe following the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the entirely legitimate enlargement of Nato.
He calls for “an indivisible European and global security system for the long term, where the security of some countries cannot be ensured at the expense or to the detriment of other countries, definitely not Russia”. That is Soviet-style double speak meaning the dissolution of Nato.
Thus far, Putin has not hinted at any concessions and has not been put under pressure by the Trump administration. However, should a joint proposal be agreed between Ukraine, a “coalition of the willing” and the United States, he would have a decision to make.
Putin believes that he can continue to grind the Ukrainians down until they surrender, especially if he can persuade the Americans to withdraw their support. But, while Russia has the upper hand, the war is not going well for Putin. The human and economic costs are being felt.
So Putin would face a dilemma if Donald Trump confronted him with a joint ceasefire plan embodying security for a sovereign Ukraine.
On the one hand, he would not wish to alienate Trump, from whom he has received unrequited benefits (the restoration of diplomatic contacts; the promise of three summits; moves to reopen economic links entailing the lifting of sanctions; even US sponsorship to rejoin the G7). On the other, Russia has adamantly ruled out accepting a coalition of the willing being deployed to protect the ceasefire.
Trump claims Putin is persuadable. Replying to a question during his meeting with President Macron on 24 February, he said that Putin would accept European peacekeepers: “I’ve asked him that question. Because he’s not, look, if we do this deal, he’s not looking for more war. He doesn’t mind but I’ve specifically asked him that question. He has no problem with it.”
I’d love to believe it, but I fear Putin would seek to attach impossible terms to any conditional Russian acceptance and then blame Nato and Ukraine for continuation of the war.
Zelensky has done all that has been asked of him. However relentlessly he is bullied, he does not have the power to stop this war alone. Only the Russians can do so. That’s why it’s critical that Putin is now put on the spot. Trump needs to offer him terms which the Ukrainians and their support team can accept. He should leave Putin in no doubt that, if Russia rejects the chance to halt the war and begin negotiations for a just settlement, the US would throw its full weight behind Ukraine. That’s the only possible chance of success.
Sir Roderic Lyne served as Britain's ambassador to Russia from 2000 to 2004.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.