Anatol Lieven - Why Trump gets it right on Ukraine peace - Russia News Now
therussophile.org -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 12:29:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, Foreign Policy & International Relations, U.S. Elections & Voting Rights
In Alaska he found reality: he is now embracing an agreement without demanding a ceasefire first, which would have never worked anyway.
Most of the Western commentary on the Alaska summit is criticizing President Trump for precisely the wrong reason. The accusation is that by abandoning his call for an unconditional ceasefire as the first step in peace talks, Trump has surrendered a key position and "aligned himself with Putin."
This is nonsense. What Trump has done is to align himself with reality, and the real charge against him is that he should probably have done this from the start, and saved six months of fruitless negotiations and thousands of Ukrainian and Russian lives. Moreover, by continually emphasising a prior ceasefire as his key goal, Trump set himself up for precisely the kind of criticism that he is now receiving.
He is now entirely correct in saying that he wants "to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire, which often times do not hold up."
The Russian side made clear from the very start of negotiations that they would not agree to an unconditional ceasefire. Indeed it would have been completely illogical for them to do so, given that military pressure on Ukraine, and advances on the battlefield, are by far the most important leverage that Russia can bring to bear at the negotiating table.
The refusal to recognize this on the part of Western analysts and European governments betrays either an inability to understand obvious realities or a desire that the war should continue indefinitely, in the hope that Russia will eventually accede to present Ukrainian conditions for peace. That would make sense if Ukrainian conditions were realistic, and if developments on the battlefield were in Ukraine's favor. But some of Ukraine's demands are completely unacceptable to Moscow, and Ukraine and the West have no way of compelling Russia's agreement, since it is the Russian army that is advancing (albeit slowly) on the ground and the West cannot provide soldiers to supplement Ukraine's increasingly outnumbered and depleted forces.
The call for a ceasefire without a peace agreement is also contrary to the real interests of Ukraine and Europe. Such a ceasefire would be extremely fragile, and even if (mostly) observed by the two sides, would lead to a semi-frozen conflict at permanent risk of erupting again. This would make it vastly more difficult for Ukraine to carry out the reforms and economic development necessary for it to even begin to proceed towards membership of the European Union.
It is understandable that NATO governments are distrustful of Moscow's intentions; but if they are to take a practical and viable approach to peace negotiations they have to recognize that Russians are also distrustful of their intentions, and in part with good reason. In international affairs -- and history -- there is also no such thing as a permanent and absolute security guarantee, as presently demanded by the Europeans.
Short of the complete defeat and subjugation of one side -- which is out of the question in Russia's case -- the best that can realistically be hoped for is a combination of deterrents and incentives that will discourage a return to arms for a long time to come.
A semi-frozen conflict would also be bad for the European continent as a whole. It would create a long-term risk of a return to war in Ukraine and European entanglement in the war, when long-term U.S. military support for Europe in these circumstances is all too obviously no longer guaranteed.
On the other hand, as highlighted last week in Responsible Statecraft, the resulting need and hope for U.S. support would force the EU and European states into deeper and deeper dependence on an undependable U.S., resulting in more of the kind of economic surrender over tariffs and subservience to U.S.-agendas in the Middle East that we have seen in recent months. If continued, such humiliations will undermine the domestic prestige of European establishments and threaten civil peace and liberal democracy in ways that Moscow could never hope to achieve.
Worst of all, at least according to its latest statement, the so-called European "coalition of the willing" might try to use a ceasefire to insert a European military force into Ukraine, even without a comprehensive agreement:
"Ukraine must have robust and credible security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Coalition of the Willing is ready to play an active role, including through plans by those willing to deploy a reassurance force once hostilities have ceased. No limitations should be placed on Ukraine's armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries. Russia could not have a veto against Ukraine's pathway to EU and NATO."
This is either insanity or duplicity because every European government (and the Biden administration) has already stated that they are not prepared to go to war to defend Ukraine. Even the government of Poland ruled out sending troops to Ukraine. The British government has been foremost in proposing such a force -- but has also said that it can only take place with a guaranteed U.S. "backstop" which the Trump administration has so far ruled out. Opinion polls show European publics deeply divided on the question of sending troops to Ukraine.
Are European governments really prepared to send wholly inadequate numbers of their soldiers into the middle of an unsolved conflict? Or given that Russia has categorically ruled out accepting such a force as part of a peace settlement, is this really a duplicitous way of trying to block an agreement?
The same is true of the statement that Ukraine's path to NATO should remain open. Preventing this was a key part of Moscow's motivation for launching this war. Insisting on this condition would therefore block a peace agreement -- and yet at the same time be completely empty and hypocritical, given the stated and demonstrated refusal of NATO governments to go to war to defend Ukraine. Official statements about European states' "unwavering solidarity" is pointless, since the Russians do not believe it -- and extremely dangerous, if the Ukrainians do believe it.
None of this should be taken as saying that all of Russia's conditions are acceptable or should be accepted. Putin appears to have dropped one impossible demand, that Ukraine withdrawal from the whole of Kherson and Zaporizhia provinces. The remaining Russian demand is for the Ukrainian army's withdrawal from the part of Donetsk that it holds, in return for Russian withdrawal from much smaller parts of Kharkiv and other provinces.
Trump is reportedly advising the Ukrainian government to accept this. They are refusing to do so, which is very understandable, but also mistaken if by accepting this they can get a stable peace and Russian compromise in other areas -- notably, in Moscow's demand for Ukrainian "demilitarization." For realistically speaking, the Ukrainian army seem to be in the process of losing this land anyway.
We will know much more about present Russian conditions when Trump meets with President Zelensky on Monday. Trump is engaged in a form of shuttle diplomacy between the two combatants; and the only fairly unusual thing about this is that it is the U.S. president who is doing this, rather than the secretary of state or national security adviser.
Is Trump wise to place the prestige of the U.S. presidency on the line in this way? We should at least give him credit for moral courage. It is also true however that while Putin is hardly the "global pariah" of Western political and media rhetoric he is clearly eager to restore relations with the U.S. and maintain them with Trump; and if a personal meeting with the American president and a ride in the presidential limousine are the price of reducing Russian demands on Ukraine, it is a price well worth paying.
from https://braveneweurope.com/anatol-lieven-why-trump-gets-it-right-on-ukraine-peace
Sign Our PetitionThe article by Anatol Lieven presents a contentious perspective on the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, particularly in the context of President Trump's recent diplomatic maneuvers. While Lieven argues that Trump's shift away from demanding a ceasefire as a precondition for peace talks reflects a pragmatic understanding of the complexities involved, it is crucial to dissect this argument within a broader historical and political framework. This examination can illuminate the underlying issues at play and provide important context for understanding the stakes of this conflict.
Firstly, it is essential to understand the historical backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine relationship, which has been fraught with tension since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent war in Eastern Ukraine are not merely isolated incidents but part of a larger narrative of post-Soviet geopolitics. For many years, Ukraine has sought to assert its sovereignty and align more closely with Western institutions such as the European Union and NATO, while Russia perceives such moves as direct threats to its sphere of influence. This historical lens reveals that calls for peace agreements must consider not only the immediate military realities but also the long-standing grievances and aspirations of both nations. Ignoring this complexity risks oversimplifying a deeply rooted conflict.
Lieven's suggestion that a ceasefire would lead to a "semi-frozen conflict" merits further exploration. A ceasefire, while it may seem like a desirable short-term goal, often does not address the underlying political and social fractures that give rise to violence. In many historical instances, ceasefires have merely served as temporary pauses in fighting, without paving the way for durable solutions. This dynamic can be observed in various conflicts around the world, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where ceasefires have frequently faltered due to unresolved issues. Thus, a critique of Trump's approach should not solely focus on the tactical implications of negotiating without a ceasefire, but also on the broader implications for achieving lasting peace in the region.
Moreover, Lieven's framing of Western analysts as either incapable of understanding "obvious realities" or desiring the war to continue underscores a dismissive attitude towards a spectrum of perspectives on the conflict. This simplification ignores the genuine concerns that many have regarding the potential normalization of Russian aggression. The historical tendency for powerful nations to pursue expansionist policies at the expense of smaller nations should not be overlooked. As such, any peace negotiations must also grapple with the ethical implications of negotiating with a state that has employed military force to assert its will over another sovereign nation. The reluctance of NATO governments to trust Moscow's intentions is rooted in historical lessons about appeasement and the long-term consequences of allowing aggressive actions to go unchallenged.
Furthermore, Lieven's assertion that Western governments must recognize Russian distrust is a call for a nuanced understanding of international relations. However, it is equally important to emphasize that trust cannot be built on the back of military might or coercive diplomacy. Historical examples show that sustainable peace often arises from inclusive dialogue that considers the voices and rights of all parties involved, rather than solely the demands of the stronger side. The plight of Ukrainians, who are fighting not just for territorial integrity but also for their democratic aspirations and human rights, must be front and center in any discussion of peace. A peace agreement that ignores these foundational elements risks not only failure but also a return to hostilities.
In conclusion, while Lieven presents a perspective that emphasizes pragmatism in negotiations, it is crucial to approach the Russia-Ukraine conflict with a comprehensive understanding of its historical context and the social justice implications of any proposed solutions. The struggle for Ukrainian sovereignty and democracy is not merely a geopolitical chess game; it is a deeply human issue that impacts lives on both sides of the conflict. As discussions around peace continue, it is vital to advocate for solutions that prioritize justice, collective security, and the dignity of all affected populations, thereby rejecting any oversimplified narratives that do not account for the complexities of this enduring struggle.
Analyzing the recent commentary on Donald Trump's approach to the Ukraine crisis reveals a broader conversation about peace negotiations and the complexities of geopolitical relationships. The article suggests that Trump’s shift away from demanding an unconditional ceasefire is a pragmatic approach aligned with the realities of the situation. This perspective, however, raises critical questions about the implications of prioritizing negotiations over human rights, national sovereignty, and the ethical dimensions of war. As we dissect these themes, it becomes essential to consider what actions we, as engaged citizens, can take to advocate for a more just and equitable resolution to the conflict.
Historically, the discourse surrounding ceasefires versus peace agreements has been fraught with tension. Peace agreements often require a comprehensive understanding of the underlying issues and grievances, while ceasefires can merely serve as temporary pauses in conflict. The article’s argument suggests that unconditional ceasefires can lead to a "semi-frozen conflict," a scenario where tensions remain unresolved, fostering an environment ripe for future violence. The lessons of history remind us that without addressing the root causes of conflict, peace becomes a mere illusion. For instance, the protracted Israeli-Palestinian conflict has demonstrated how ceasefires, while allowing for short-term relief, have failed to bring about lasting solutions. Thus, we must critically approach any proposal that prioritizes expediency over genuine reconciliation.
The article also highlights a significant challenge: the asymmetrical nature of military power in the Ukraine conflict. Russia's military advancements have placed Ukraine in a vulnerable position, which complicates the negotiation dynamics and underscores the importance of international solidarity. While the argument suggests that Western analysts may be naive or overly optimistic about Ukraine's position, it is crucial to recognize the importance of empowering Ukraine through robust support—both militarily and economically—while also advocating for human rights and the protection of civilians. This dual approach can help create a more favorable environment for negotiations that respect the sovereignty and agency of the Ukrainian people.
As concerned citizens, we have the power to influence the narrative surrounding the Ukraine crisis and advocate for strategies that prioritize long-term peace and justice. Engaging in grassroots activism, writing to representatives, and supporting organizations focused on diplomacy and humanitarian aid are vital steps we can take. Additionally, public discourse should focus on the realities of war—challenging the narratives that simplify complex geopolitical issues into binary choices. By fostering a more nuanced understanding of the conflict, we can help shift the dialogue from one of military dominance to one that emphasizes shared security and cooperation among nations.
Lastly, we must educate ourselves and others about the implications of our foreign policy decisions. The article alludes to a distrust that exists on both sides, which can often be rooted in historical grievances and a lack of mutual understanding. By promoting educational initiatives that delve into the history of Russia-Ukraine relations, NATO's role, and the impact of Western foreign policy in Eastern Europe, we can cultivate a more informed public. This knowledge empowers individuals to engage in more meaningful discussions and hold policymakers accountable for the choices they make in international relations.
In conclusion, while the article presents a perspective that aligns with a pragmatic understanding of negotiations, we must remain critical of the ethical implications of such approaches. By advocating for a comprehensive understanding of peace that prioritizes human rights, sovereignty, and mutual trust, we can play a role in shaping a more just outcome in the Ukraine crisis. Engaging in informed activism, challenging dominant narratives, and promoting education are essential steps for those who wish to contribute to a more peaceful and equitable world.
Given the complexities outlined in the article regarding peace negotiations in Ukraine, it is essential to engage constructively and advocate for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. Here are actionable steps we can take to contribute to a peaceful resolution and ensure that our voices are heard.
### Personal Actions We Can Take
1. **Educate Ourselves and Others**: - Read and share articles, books, and research on the Ukraine conflict and diplomatic strategies for peace. - Host discussion groups or forums to promote understanding and dialogue within your community.
2. **Engage with Elected Officials**: - Write to your congressional representatives to express support for diplomatic solutions to the Ukraine conflict. Encourage them to prioritize peace over prolonged military engagement.
**Example Contacts**: - **Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez** - Email: ocasiocortez.house.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 2300 Southern Blvd, Bronx, NY 10458
- **Senator Bernie Sanders** - Email: sanders.senate.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 1 Berkshire Blvd, Suite 303, Holyoke, MA 01040
- **Representative Ilhan Omar** - Email: omar.house.gov/contact - Mailing Address: 2221 University Ave SE, Suite 120, Minneapolis, MN 55414
3. **Petition for Peace Initiatives**: - Create or join petitions that call for prioritizing diplomatic negotiations over military escalation in Ukraine. - Websites like Change.org or MoveOn.org can be platforms to start or support such petitions.
**Example Petition**: - Search for existing petitions related to Ukraine peace negotiations on Change.org. If none exist, consider starting one titled "Support Diplomacy First: A Call for Peace in Ukraine".
4. **Participate in Local Activism**: - Join or support local activist organizations that focus on peace and diplomacy. Participate in rallies or events that promote a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict.
**Example Organizations**: - **Peace Action**: Engage with local chapters to get involved in their campaigns. - **Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)**: Check for local events or activism opportunities.
5. **Communicate with Media Outlets**: - Write letters to the editor or opinion pieces for local newspapers advocating for a diplomatic approach to the Ukraine crisis. - Share your perspective on social media platforms to raise awareness and foster dialogue.
6. **Support Humanitarian Efforts**: - Contribute to organizations providing aid and support to those affected by the conflict in Ukraine. This not only aids those in need but also highlights the human cost of ongoing military conflict.
**Example Organizations**: - **Doctors Without Borders**: They provide medical assistance in crisis regions. - **UNICEF**: Supports children and families impacted by conflict.
### What to Say
When communicating with officials or the media, emphasize the following points:
- **Advocate for Peace**: Stress the importance of a negotiated peace agreement that addresses the concerns of both Ukraine and Russia, rather than prolonging military conflict. - **Highlight Human Costs**: Use statistics and anecdotes to illustrate the humanitarian impact of the ongoing conflict on civilians. - **Promote Dialogue**: Encourage representatives to support initiatives that foster dialogue and understanding between conflicting parties. - **Call for Transparency**: Urge officials to communicate clearly about the goals and implications of U.S. involvement in Ukraine.
By taking these steps, we can contribute to a more informed and engaged public dialogue about the Ukraine conflict and advocate for a peaceful resolution that benefits all parties involved.