In the corridors of power, a crucial deadline looms: Vladimir Putin is determined to declare victory in Ukraine by May 9th, the date of Russia’s iconic Victory Day celebrations marking the Soviet Union’s triumph over Nazi Germany in 1945. However, as the Russian forces continue to face fierce resistance and mounting difficulties, the outlook for a swift resolution to the conflict appears increasingly uncertain. Adding to the complexity, Donald Trump’s much-publicised seven-point peace plan is stirring controversy, offering Russia significant concessions while simultaneously challenging established international norms.
Trump’s peace plan, presented with the rhetoric of an ultimatum, frames the ongoing war as a matter of take it or leave it. “It’s time for them to either say yes, or the United States to walk away from the process,” stated JD Vance, a key Trump ally, in what can only be described as faux-naïve rhetoric. However, the reality is far more complicated. Trump’s terms are seen by many as a crude attempt to appease Moscow and shift the balance of power in Russia’s favour, and it’s unlikely that the plan will bring an end to the conflict any time soon.
The proposals, which have leaked to the press, are seen by critics as the opening moves in a high-stakes geopolitical game. They promise to recognise Russia’s annexation of Crimea, lift sanctions against Russia in exchange for limited cooperation on energy, and freeze Ukraine’s NATO aspirations indefinitely. Furthermore, the plan suggests that Ukraine should pay reparations to Russia by sharing its mineral profits. While Trump’s strategy might be palatable to some in Moscow, it has left European allies deeply concerned, with many accusing Trump of essentially siding with Putin. As the New York Times bluntly states, the former president’s approach could lead to the abandonment of Ukraine and a dangerous normalisation of relations with Russia.
This line of thinking also raises questions about the future of international security architecture. Trump’s suggestion that Russia’s territorial gains since 2014 be legitimised goes against the core principles of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, both of which prohibit the alteration of borders through force. By endorsing Russia’s actions, Trump risks undermining the post-World War II order and weakening America’s credibility on the global stage. The long-term implications of such a shift could be profound, especially for countries that rely on the integrity of international law for their own security.
For Europe, these developments are cause for concern. Several nations, including Gulf States, Canada, Denmark, and Turkey, are already reconsidering their dependence on US military hardware, and the UK must do the same. The UK’s defence agreements, such as the multi-billion-pound deals for American aircraft like the P8 Poseidon, Wedgetail surveillance aircraft, and the F-35, now look increasingly problematic and warrant urgent scrutiny.
Meanwhile, attention is turning to the increasingly shadowy role of Steve Witkoff, Trump’s personal envoy to Russia, whose mission seems to blur the lines between diplomatic negotiations and business dealings. Witkoff’s meetings with Putin, alongside his discussions with Kirill Dmitriev, the Kremlin’s top investment banker, raise questions about the true nature of these high-level interactions. The discussions, which reportedly touch on potential joint US-Russian ventures in Russia’s mineral-rich tundra, have a distinctly speculative feel, and many observers are sceptical about their viability.
For all the concessions that Trump’s plan extends to Russia, Putin’s objectives remain largely unmet. When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the goal was clear: to “denazify” Ukraine, install a pro-Russian regime, and reassert control over its neighbour. Yet, despite a massive mobilisation of troops and a gruelling war effort, Russia’s advances have largely stalled. Strategic cities like Pokrovsk remain in Ukrainian hands, while civilian areas continue to bear the brunt of Russian missile and drone attacks, amounting to what many are calling war crimes.
More Read
Putin’s need to declare victory by May 9th is driven by the symbolic significance of the date, but the reality is far grimmer. A declaration of victory would be more propaganda than fact, and the ongoing war shows no signs of winding down. As Russia faces increasing military setbacks and a war economy strained by international sanctions, the outlook for a swift conclusion to the conflict remains bleak.
For Ukraine, the situation is dire but not hopeless. The country remains steadfast in its resistance, but the pressure on President Volodymyr Zelensky’s government is immense. Europe, in particular, cannot afford to disengage. The UK, as a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum, has a moral and legal obligation to uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty, and its role in maintaining the rules-based international order has never been more critical.
Trump’s ultimatum risks turning into a strategic miscalculation. By threatening to walk away, he risks looking impotent and increasingly irrelevant, alienating allies while emboldening adversaries. With his peace plan failing to secure the desired results, the prospects for peace in Ukraine remain as elusive as ever, and the war, it seems, will rage on.
