Is Trump's proposal for peace realistic?

A torrent of criticism has been unleashed against American President Donald Trump after his alleged 'bullying tactics' employed against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was accorded a warm welcome in Europe on Sunday.

Europe has vowed to stand with the humiliated president in solidarity. European leaders are scrambling to deal with the situation arising out of the meeting with some trying to calm down the situation by talking to the United States in a friendly way while others are advocating a hardline, asserting that Europe should no longer depend on the US for its security.

Trump's peace proposal seems to have been overshadowed by the heat of tensions. While many describe this move as unrealistic, meant to appease an authoritarian leader, some saner voices are questioning the rationale for lambasting Trump, who is trying to snuff out a conflict that has been raging for years now, destroying the invaded country besides creating a spectre of a third world war.

Those who believe in real politics consider Trump's proposal to be realistic and doable. They assert the history of conflicts shows that it is always the weaker who has to capitulate. In this situation, since Ukraine is militarily weak, there is no way that peace terms could be favourable to the invaded country.

They argue that restoration of peace could extend immense benefits to the invaded country, which is unlikely to mount any robust defence against Russian military actions without crucial military support from the US which has announced to suspend military aid to the invaded country.

Security analysts argue that Europe is not in a position to challenge the military might of Russia, which is equipped with 5,580 nuclear warheads besides having 3,708,000 military personnel, out of whom 1,154,000 are on active duty. In addition to that, the largest country by territory also has 554,000 paramilitary troops, one of the highest in the world.

When the Russian military might is compared with European powers, one can easily notice glaring disparities. For instance, the two major military powers of Europe — the UK and France — have 225 and 290 nuclear warheads respectively. According to the House of Commons Library’s website, "On 1 April 2024 the total size of the full-time UK armed forces (trained and untrained) was around 148,230 personnel" while France's active service personnel were just 304,000.

The West with the might of Nato could indeed mount an effective defence of Ukraine. It is also correct that the US with its 5,225 nuclear warheads could emerge as a big deterrent but this is where the problem lies. The sole superpower seems to have abandoned Europe. It is not ready to side with Ukraine any longer. The US does not have only the largest number of nuclear weapons in Nato but it is also the biggest financial and military contributor to the Western alliance, contributing 15.8 per cent to it in 2023.

Apart from the US, Turkiye has the second-largest army in Nato, spending over 2% of GDP on defence but in case of any confrontation between Russia and Europe, it is not clear whether Ankara would side with the giant military power or support the European continent that turned a blind eye to its pleas for joining the European Union for years. It is not only Turkiye that is not comfortable with the idea of infuriating Russian President Vladimir Putin; some European countries would also love to hobnob with the Russian leader.

Though public opinion in Europe is extremely hostile towards Russia, there are still some states where people are believed to have a pro-Russian attitude. For instance, a poll conducted in September 2022 showed that the majority of Slovaks would welcome a Russian military victory over Ukraine. In another survey conducted in May of that year, only 33% of Bulgarians and 45% of Hungarians perceived Russia as a threat. It is also believed that Hungary, Slovakia and Bulgaria also tend to show the weakest support in the region for European Union sanctions against Russia.

Europeans' attitude towards immigration is hostile and is one of the main reasons leading to the rise of the far right. However, Europeans have comparatively been sympathetic towards refugees fleeing Ukraine. Millions of them were welcomed in several parts of Europe but rising inflation and skyrocketing energy bills because of the Ukrainian conflict are fueling anger among the people against all types of immigration. It is feared that parts of Europe could be gripped by xenophobic elements who might start diverting their anger towards Ukrainians as well.

Europe's efforts to support Ukraine militarily would require it to allocate more spending for defence, forcing European states to further slash the social sector development budget. Such cuts under the austerity drive have already dealt a severe blow to the sector, which has been grappling with the rising demands for social services with fewer sources of revenue.

Many Europeans have already been complaining about falling living standards as well as the state of service at hospitals, social care establishments and other places. Critics believe that if more money is allocated to Ukraine, it is bound to generate more anger, strengthening the position of the far right on the political landscape.

Given all this, political observers believe, Europe should give up its opposition to Trump's peace initiative. They believe that restoration of peace would ensure a cheap supply of Russian gas that is likely to benefit millions of Europeans besides boosting the industries of the continent at a time when it is facing tough competition from China and a tariff regime from the US.

Security experts claim that a mineral deal between the US and Ukraine will make it difficult for Russia to take any aggressive action against the invaded country. They believe if the US makes heavy investments in the war-torn country, it would be very difficult for Moscow to take extreme military actions, jeopardising American investment. Russia has also been reeling under the impacts of tough sanctions, so it would avoid extracting undue concessions.

Those that are apprehensive about Putin’s designs fear the Russian leader would wish to extract more concessions and will not be content just with restoration of peace in Ukraine. They think Putin is determined to restore the Soviet Union in a different way for which he wants to subjugate all former Soviet regions besides threatening Europe.

They assert that capitulating to Moscow means the international community is legitimising aggression and approving Russia's land grab of Ukraine.

However, those who favour the peace initiative argue that it was Western provocation that prompted Russia to invade Ukraine.

Had Nato not expanded eastward after the demise of the USSR, Russia would not have felt threatened and invaded its neighbour. They argue that if Europe does not countenance Trump’s plan then it should come up with some solution of its own. But such a solution, they caution, must involve a plan to stop Nato’s eastward expansion.

Ukraine announcing to abandon its plans to join Nato might go some way in allaying Russian fears regarding its security. Many observers believe the US wants to compete with China for which the mineral deal is important. After the deal, it will not tolerate any disturbance to such mineral supply. Therefore, it is the only doable and realistic peace plan, and would also go some way in ensuring Ukraine's security.

The writer is a freelance journalist who can be reached at: [email protected]

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed in this piece are the writer's own and don't necessarily reflect Geo.tv's editorial policy.

Originally published in The News