President Trump has taken on the role of mediator, and President Zelensky has agreed to do so. But when,
if not now, will Europe and Ukraine take responsibility for their own security?
President Trump deserves considerable praise for his efforts to end the conflict and find a compromise in the context of Ukraine’s survival.
As Golda Meir once said, “To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you are or you are not.”
President Biden understood this and recognized Ukraine’s historical anxiety about deals between great powers that would cost Ukraine dearly. That is why he came up with the formula, “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.”
For Trump, who has always doubted Ukraine’s viability, it could be an unfortunate obstacle on the path to a Nobel Peace Prize or a “partnership” with Russia. But for President Zelensky, a routine war against Ukraine is nothing more than a question of “to be or not to be” for his people. While Zelensky has said he will accept Trump’s “leadership,” it should be clear that the country’s survival cannot be “outsourced.”
Trump has acknowledged that he spoke frequently with Putin in the months leading up to his inauguration. Both he and some of his spokespeople have voiced (even if in passing) terms that Ukraine would find difficult to agree to as part of a peace deal, and sometimes have fired “test bullets” to gauge the response to additional Russian demands. Trump has also maligned Zelensky, misinformed the public about his approval rating (which is actually 68%, not 4%), called him a “dictator,” and claimed that Ukraine provoked Russia’s invasion. All of this has cast doubt on Trump’s role as an “unbiased” mediator.
Ukraine risks losing control of its security and its future and may be forced to reconsider its relationship with the Trump administration. What is worrying is his treatment of Ukraine as an object rather than a subject. Moreover, the US president ignores Europe’s right to participate in the negotiations and lies that Europe has been less supportive of Ukraine than the US.
Neither Putin nor Trump should arbitrarily decide with whom and when to negotiate. The optimal time for Ukraine to negotiate a ceasefire may differ from Trump’s timetable. Experienced negotiators emphasize the importance of choosing the time to negotiate from a position of strength.
Putin’s economy is in a sorry state, his military is suffering serious losses, and popular discontent in Russia is growing. On the other side of the Atlantic, most Americans support Ukraine regaining its territories and even more disapprove of Trump’s approach to waging war. Yet both presidents – Trump and Putin – are acting as if it were a game of thrones.
Since the invasion of Crimea in 2014, the elephant in the room has also been seen in the form of the Budapest Memorandum. Despite different interpretations of the binding nature of this document, all commentators agree that Russia has violated its own obligations, and the other signatory states have violated their moral duty to respond.
The memorandum is of unlimited duration and establishes a basic legal remedy. The basic ones are the restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, restitution and the right of all signatory states to intervene. The signatories are the leaders of Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia. Even France has supported the memorandum with a separate document.
While the signatory states may deny that the Budapest Memorandum is legally binding, they cannot escape their moral responsibility in the eyes of the whole world. Agreements are meaningless if they are not implemented.
Putin prefers to negotiate only with Trump, but Trump, Zelensky, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer should summon him for “consultations” under the Budapest Memorandum. Putin has grossly violated the “assurances” Russia gave to Ukraine and should not choose his counterparties, and his demands should not carry much weight. Any recognition by the United States of the legitimacy of Russia’s annexations would undermine and violate the very “assurances” the United States gave.
While Putin is deliberating, Trump can significantly help him make the right decision by tightening sanctions against Russia, accelerating the supply of arms and services to Ukraine that have been authorized and paid for by Congress, and refraining from making concessions to Russia. In short, he should act in tandem with the other two signatories.
No one wants the war to end more than the Ukrainians. But that’s not the point. The point is on what terms it will end. Will it end with the bandit returning the stolen property and the 20,000+ kidnapped children, paying for the killings and damage, and sending his army home? Will it end with the bandit getting even more loot, stealing even more children, and continuing to devastate the land with four million people in the occupied territories? Will the peace last in the long run, or only until Russia recovers? In other words, will it end with honor, decency, and self-respect, or with shame and self-hatred?
In the absence of Trump’s commitment to provide security guarantees and hold Russia accountable for violating the Budapest Memorandum, the only way out for Ukraine and Europe is to take on the role that US presidents have long called on Europe to take the lead in its own defense. After nearly seven decades of dependence on the US, Europe was bound to face a full or partial withdrawal of the US. Let’s hope that the US will remain engaged throughout Trump’s term, rather than shifting its security burden to Europe.
Until then, Europe should recognize that it is woefully unprepared to confront Putin’s Russia and use this time to prepare. Ukraine’s experience and readiness are a deterrent for Europe, as Putin will not attack a NATO country while Ukraine threatens his armies from the rear. Conversely, if Putin subjugates Ukraine and incorporates it into his forces, Europe will not win.
In short, Ukraine and Europe must create something more than a partnership, transforming it into a commonwealth of states on the principle of “to be or not to be”. Time is of the essence. Europe’s two highest priorities must be: (first) providing Ukraine with everything it needs to protect its people and gain firepower advantage over Putin’s army and mercenaries; and (second) creating and activating an organization capable of stimulating and coordinating the development of a European defense-industrial complex, the development of advanced weapons, and the training and equipping of personnel necessary to win a major land war.
Now may be the time for Ukraine and Europe to take the lead in addressing the threat to their security by participating in all stages of the ceasefire and in the negotiations. These consultations should include the signatories to the Budapest Memorandum, and the parties should be united in their insistence that Russia fulfill its obligations under this agreement. Most importantly, the president of Ukraine must speak softly, but have a “big stick” to say “No” when needed.
George Voloshin is a retired senior official and Senate-confirmed presidential envoy to the Reagan administration. He served as head of the National Civilian Personnel Security Division, National Emergency Management Agency, and inspector general of the regulatory agency. He has also been active in many charitable programs involving Ukraine, Kyiv Post
