The Economist: Trump's 28-Point Ukraine Plan Is Dangerous
The 28-point peace plan that US President Donald Trump is pushing as a basis for ending the war in Ukraine is dangerous not only for Ukraine but also for Europe and even for the United States, The Economist wrote on Friday, October 23.
The magazine says the plan is "so badly drafted, so vague, unbalanced and impractical that in a more normal world it would never have appeared." But these are not normal times, it argues. It is quite possible, even likely, that Trump will insist Ukraine accept the plan or something close to it by Thanksgiving. If President Volodymyr Zelensky refuses, Trump could cut Ukraine off from US intelligence and advanced weapons, as he already did earlier this year, with devastating consequences.
What the plan would require
According to The Economist, the plan bars Ukraine from striking Moscow or St Petersburg with missiles but sets no limits on Russian strikes. It caps the Ukrainian army at 600,000 troops while placing no cap on Russia's forces. It also bans NATO troops from Ukrainian territory, which would end European plans, until now believed to have US backing, to deploy a "reassurance force" there.
"Russia is rewarded for ending its invasion: it is allowed to keep all the territory it has seized and even what it has not yet taken; it is welcomed back into the international community, including the G8; its sanctions are eased and it is given generous opportunities to make money," the magazine writes.
Risks for Europe and America
The Economist says such a "generous reward" would encourage Russian leader Vladimir Putin to attack Ukraine again and give him the money and time to rebuild the armies he needs for his long-term goal of threatening and pressuring countries that border Russia, from the Arctic to the Black Sea.
"Putin is a serial violator of international agreements. He will know that, at least under Trump, America despises its European allies; they were not consulted while this plan was drafted. That is not in America's interest. Japan and South Korea will take note. So will China, which has its eye on Taiwan," the article says.
Trump's supporters argue that this pessimistic reading ignores the security guarantees America offers Ukraine: point 10 of the plan says that if Russia invades again, America would launch a "coordinated military response." The magazine notes, however, that since the days of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, America has made clear it would not go to direct war with Russia over Ukraine. Under Trump it is unclear whether America would fight Russia even over a NATO member. The plan makes the "guarantee" entirely dependent on Trump's whims, and the pledge would not even be backed by the US Congress.
The Economist's advice to Kyiv and European leaders
Throughout this war, the magazine says, America and Europe have given Ukraine too little help too late. Now America is being paid for supplying weapons to Ukraine. Last month Europe failed to agree a plan to confiscate Russian assets and send €140 billion ($160 billion) to Ukraine; under Trump's plan those funds would pass to US control and be used to generate profit for America. European leaders, gathering in alarm today, are paying dearly for failing to seize the initiative, which shows their short-sightedness.
Ukraine, The Economist says, should do everything it can to avoid a confrontation with Trump and try to improve the plan's terms during negotiations. European leaders should immediately build ties with sympathetic Republicans in Congress, to warn Trump against striking a deal in its current form or, if talks collapse, to keep him from attacking Ukraine publicly. Despite Europe's serious financial problems, its leaders must find the money to back Ukraine, which may now well mean fighting on without America.
"The fight will be fierce and the price high, but far lower than the cost of defending NATO against a strengthened Russian threat if Ukraine loses. The current American plan is dangerous not only for Ukraine but also for Europe, so its leaders must move from outrage to action. They have already wasted too much time on vain hopes," the article concludes.
Read more in our politics coverage, including The Atlantic's report that Trump wants a deal to end the war by year-end.