Zelensky may well say no

Recent days seem to have all but confirmed the worst case scenario for Ukraine - that the Trump administration has sold it down the river to Russia.

A Washington Post article seemed to lay out in some detail the contours of the peace plan proposed by the Trump administration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/04/22/ukraine-russia-rubio-london-crimea-peace-deal/

At face value this appears to be a total capitulation to Russia’s terms. It includes acceptance of:

• No future NATO membership for Ukraine;

• No NATO troop deployment to Ukraine - questions then over the form, status and consequence of the proposed European “reassurance Force”;

• Legal acceptance of Russian sovereignty over Crimea;

• De facto acceptance of Russian control over other territory it currently occupies - in Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhiya;

• Lifting of sanctions against Russia;

• No specific US security guarantees for Ukraine aside from the so called “minerals deal” whereby the U.S. would encourage investment into Ukraine for joint U.S. and Ukrainian ownership of a sovereign wealth fund. The Trump administration seems to think that the mere presence of U.S. business interests in Ukraine will preclude future Russian attacks - even though their presence in the past failed to deter the invasion.

It is hard to see what Ukraine gets from the above deal aside from vague, and non specific, assurances from the US. Remember in the past Ukraine had what it thought were hard, written down security assurances in the form of the Budapest memorandum of 1994, after it surrendered its huge nuclear arsenal, and they proved not to be worth the paper they were written on.

The above deal tramples over Ukrainian sovereignty, established since independence in 1991, and accepted at the time by Russia, the UN, the EU and NATO. The deal also is an acceptance that might is right and great powers get to set their own borders. The great dominate the weak. International borders, accepted by the UN mean nothing in the new world following this deal.

President Zelensky now faces a hellishly difficult decision.

In accepting this deal he has to weigh up the strength of US assurances and whether Putin will still abide by the deal. Will Putin just use any deal and sanctions moderation to re-arm for the next invasion - and assumption that limitations on U.S. arms supplies to Ukraine will create a greater long term military advantage for Russia? And he has to weigh up the domestic political response. Will the mere acceptance of the deal risk a third Ukrainian revolution - following the Orange Revolution and Euromaydan, overthrowing him and bringing in a more militarist administration likely to want to go back to war with Russia? Will any such revolution just undermine domestic political, social and economic cohesion to a breaking point which might be used again as an excuse for further Russian invasion? Surely without adequate security guarantees how will any investment flow into Ukraine? And that surely suggests economic, social and likely ultimately political failure again. How can Ukraine then hope to ensure a strong enough economy and social and political set up to defend against future Russian attacks? Any such deal might bring some short lived peace but might ultimately risk state failure and then Russian exploitation of Ukrainian weakness to deliver on Putin’s maximalist objectives - the capture of the whole of Ukraine.

And yet if he rejects this deal he would have to assume the loss of U.S. support in a continuing war with Russia. The U.S. might still lift sanctions on Russia - even if Europe did not. How long could Ukraine survive still in such a war? Therein much depends on the stance of Europe. Would Europe be willing and able to continue to support Ukraine economically and militarily if this risked a major break with the U.S.? And how could key gaps in Western military support left by the U.S. walking away be filled? Herein think of longer range air defence (Patriots) and strike capability (HIMARS, ATACMS) plus intelligence?

Zelensky might well conclude that by fighting on - even for six months, or a year - the end result might still be the same, with further Russian military advance risking a total defeat of Ukraine.

Zelensky might though think that Ukraine, and Ukrainians fought three years against Russia without conceding, and faced much more overwhelming odds in the first few weeks after the invasion, but managed to survive and fight on. Russia still lacks the military capability to take much advantage from a U.S. withdrawal of support to Ukraine. It simply lacks the shear number of troops to take and hold Ukraine against an entrenched and motivated opposition - also now better armed. He also knows that Ukrainians know what a Russian victory means - they remember the Holodymyr, Bucha, Mariupol, et al, and they love their land. What’s the point of a peace deal if they lose their land, sovereignty and identity? And perhaps they would conclude that fighting on might create new opportunities - remember Prigozhin? And imagine how weak and vulnerable Putin would look if Trump gifted Putin a supposed victory but Putin was unable to deliver on that as Ukraine opted to fight on. Ukraine might also be surprised by continued European support - as at the least the Balts, Poland, the Scandies and the U.K. seem to understand the existential risk now from Russia and that Europe’s best defence against an expansionist Russia is no longer the U.S., but actually Ukraine. With 40% plus of military kit now made in Ukraine, and rising, and with Europe filling the gaps, perhaps at least half of US military provision could be filled by Europe and that this buys both Ukraine and Europe time, and will eventually weigh down on Russia.

Hard choice for Zelensky but my sense is that he will not accept a bad deal, at all cost, and Ukrainians will support him in the latter choice, if he chooses to fight on.