The peace “plan” the US is pressuring Ukraine to sign may be improving after talks in Geneva over the weekend, which would be good news. In its eagerness for a diplomatic victory, however, the White House shouldn’t forget the costs of a weak deal that fails to keep Russian aggression in check.
That’s precisely what the administration’s original 28-point proposal would have done. Drafted with little Ukrainian input and largely reflecting Russian priorities, it required Ukraine to surrender territory it still controls, slash its armed forces, bar foreign military support and hold elections on the Kremlin’s timetable, all while imposing no comparable obligations on the aggressor in the war. Security guarantees, while stronger than before, were structured in ways that would allow President Vladimir Putin to trigger their collapse at will.
European leaders were rightfully alarmed, as were many in Congress, including Republicans. And while Ukrainian officials sound encouraged by newer drafts of the framework, the most contentious issues — including potential exchanges of territory — remain to be resolved.
A bad deal would pose a threat not just to Ukraine, but to US strategic interests as well. Russia would emerge militarily ascendant, menacing Europe and increasing rather than reducing the burden on America. The Pentagon would likely need to ramp up support for NATO allies with more troops, more surveillance assets, more missile defenses and more crisis management — leaving fewer resources to check China in the Indo-Pacific. If Putin violated the agreement, as past evidence suggests he would, the US would either have to push back at risk of getting pulled into a larger, messier war — or be exposed as a paper tiger.