THE BELL WEEKLY: Can Trump bring peace to Ukraine?
This week we take a detailed look at Donald Trump’s attempts to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, outline what each side wants, what we’ve learnt from the various plans on the table, and how likely an end to the war might be.
This is the last free newsletter from The Bell. From May 1, our English-language content will go behind a paywall. If you still haven’t secured your subscription, don’t forget to sign up here — you have just two days left to take advantage of a special discount rate for existing readers.
Before we begin, though, a brief note from one of your authors, Alexander Kolyandr:
We are living through interesting times when geopolitics are more closely intertwined with markets than ever before. One cannot make sense of international events without tracking political and economic developments in Russia, which is punching above its weight in the world championship of disruption.
This is precisely what my fellow author, Alexandra Prokopenko, and I have been doing in this newsletter: helping you make sense of it all, from sanctions and state asset seizures to the intricacies of Russia's monetary and fiscal policy. We adhere to facts, value intellectual honesty, and avoid wishful thinking.
We also value your trust and devotion, which are now being put to the test, as The Bell in English will go behind a paywall on May 1. This change is for you. The less we need to search for ways to pay the bills, the more time and effort we can devote to this newsletter.
If you subscribe now, you'll receive a 20% discount on the currently available cheapest subscription option via our website.
What chance does Trump have of brokering a deal between Russia and Ukraine?
In the fourth year of Russia’s invasion and the fourth month of Donald Trump’s attempt to bring the war to an end, there are at last some signs that a ceasefire might be within reach. Last week, two plans were put, literally, on the negotiating table — a U.S. proposal that mostly benefits Russia, and a joint EU-Ukrainian roadmap to peace. Right now, they are incredibly far apart on almost every key issue. Nevertheless, it does not seem impossible that the two could be brought closer together. The Bell discussed the proposals, and what they say about the prospects for an elusive peace, with our sources, looking at the possible consequences of a deal for Russia.
What’s going on?
A potential ceasefire is far from certain, but the outlines of what one might look like are becoming clearer. For now they seem quite favorable to the Kremlin. If a deal is struck it would likely include a significant easing — or even a complete lifting of sanctions — while the United States might recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
The mid-April Paris meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, French President Emmanuel Macron and representatives of Britain, Germany and Ukraine saw all the key players — Washington, Moscow, Kyiv and, at last, Europe — engaged in U.S.-brokered peace talks for the first time. Two peace plans were put on the table, Reuters reported — an American proposal drawn up after long consultation with Vladimir Putin, and a second from Ukraine and Europe.
The American plan seeks immediate agreement on the key points of a lasting peace treaty — something that Putin has long demanded (a source told The Bell that Putin would never accept a truce without agreements on the “fundamental issues”). The United States itself would be willing to formally recognize Russia’s occupation of Crimea and de facto accept its control over all of the Luhansk Region (which is almost fully occupied by Russia) and the parts of the Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions that Russia’s army controls. Kyiv would regain all territory occupied by Russia in the Kharkiv Region as well control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (which would be run by the United States) and the Kakhovka hydroelectric plant. All sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014 will be removed. Kyiv would sign and implement an agreement with Washington for royalties and access to its natural resources and rare earth elements. Ukraine would be fully restored and will get reparations for the damage sustained during the war — although it is not clear from where these funds will come. In addition, Ukraine will have “firm security guarantees” in the form of agreements with European countries and “willing third countries”, though again there is no detail on what form these would take. Ukraine would agree not to join NATO, but will have the right to join the EU.
The EU-Ukrainian plan starts with an unconditional ceasefire, followed by discussions aimed towards a lasting peace treaty, including the settlement of territorial questions. It recognizes that territorial discussions will start based on the current line of contact and reiterates the U.S. plan for the two power stations. In terms of reconstruction, there is a clear statement that it — along with compensation — will be paid for with Russian assets in the West, which will remain frozen until Moscow has completely compensated Ukraine for the damage it inflicted. On the economic front, the plan says “U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia since 2014 may be subject to gradual easing after a sustainable peace is achieved and subject to resumption in the event of a breach of the peace agreement (snapback).” This plan has more complete and detailed security arrangements for Ukraine, which states that the United States should also be involved in providing guarantees to Kyiv, which should be modelled on NATO’s Article 5 (where the signatory country can be called in to defend another in the event of aggression). A separate note says there should be no restrictions on the size or composition of Ukraine’s armed forces, nor on the presence of allied forces on Ukrainian territory or the supply of weapons to Ukraine. These last points appear completely unacceptable to Russia.
Russian officials like the U.S. plan and they have not been shy about saying so. Ukraine is not willing to accept this proposal in its current form. One European diplomat told The Washington Post that it is not only reasonable, but necessary to protest against several elements of the U.S. proposal because in practice it gives Ukraine basically nothing, while giving Russia a lot. At the same time, Europe is trying to move Ukraine towards some sort of compromise, understanding that if the United States cuts military aid, Europe cannot quickly fill the gap, the newspaper wrote.
Is the end close?
With each passing week, one thing becomes clearer: Trump has been a real gift for Putin. If the U.S. proposal is implemented in even its broad terms, Putin would be able to present the end of the war as a great victory. When he invaded Ukraine, he could hardly have dreamed that it would end with the United States recognizing Crimea, all sanctions being lifted and Putin himself returning to the top international table, defying an ICC warrant for his arrest.
The two peace plans published by Reuters differ from each other on some of the most important questions. However, the difficulties do not seem completely insurmountable. Although you may not completely trust Russian sources and The Bell itself has never claimed to be a foreign policy specialist outlet, even the most skeptical of our contacts in Moscow now cautiously believe “there is a chance of an agreement.”
What are the possible stumbling blocks? Judging by the differences in the two proposals, the issue of security guarantees for Ukraine remain unresolved. Right now, it seems that Trump does not want to offer any guarantees at all, and Europe is itself unwilling to make guarantees without the United States. Ukraine’s idea of an acceptable guarantee is a separate question entirely, and the U.S. proposal would certainly not suit Kyiv.
There are also questions as to what Russia might accept. Putin insists that he, too, needs “guarantees”. In his world view, NATO is an enemy that would, at the first opportunity, “cheat him like Gorbachev.” He believes it is necessary to eliminate “the root cause of the Ukrainian crisis” and secure guarantees that NATO will not further expand, said a source close to the Russian president. There’s a big question over whether such guarantees are even possible, or how they might be delivered. Without them, Putin has no interest in a ceasefire — if he stops his military machine, it would be hugely problematic to then resume the war. It would be a new assault in front of the eyes of the world, would once again require mobilizing society and spending huge sums to secure the population’s agreement to fight. Meanwhile, Europe is unlikely to abandon its rearmament plans even if a ceasefire is in place. Trump could likely face a hostile new Congress as early as 2026 and might be replaced by a Democrat in 2028.
Bringing everybody’s positions closer is very tough — which is why it is hard to believe an end to the war is in sight. But if this assumption is wrong and an agreement is reached, would it bring a sustainable, lasting peace? Unfortunately, regardless of the terms of the final agreement, there are many doubts on that front as well.
First, Putin will be no less paranoid and opportunistic. There is no guarantee that he would not return to “finish” the war at a later date. Secondly, in the political framework of modern Russia, and with the Kremlin able to present the end of the war as a victory, it is unlikely that Russia and Russians will have to reconcile what their country has done and work through it — attacking a neighboring state and killing tens of thousands of its citizens. In short, people and nations are generally reluctant to take on heavy burdens of responsibility, especially following conflict. In his book about the first years of post-war Germany, journalist Harald Jenner described how the holocaust was a taboo subject. For a period after the war ended, German intellectuals seriously tried to argue that Germany and its people had endured so much hardships that they should be considered the main victims of World War II.
Russians are already being sold a myth much more psychologically palatable than confronting what has happened — that of a new victory over fascism, 80 years after the first. This will no doubt be joined by celebrations of the collapse of a unipolar world. All of which will only embolden the national belief that “we can do it again.”
Why the world should care
From the words of our Kremlin sources, it does not follow that Putin is definitely set on regrouping and continuing his war on the West in the event of a deal. But Europe especially will nonetheless be prepared for that possibility and will continue building up its military potential. Moscow will see that as a threat. And so the stand-off will spiral. Even with a sustainable truce — as distant as that may appear — it’s unlikely that the new Cold War will melt into a détente any time soon.
