by Miceál O’Hurley
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Point 1 of the U.S. Peace Plan begins with Ukraine’s sovereignty being confirmed. This is a good thing, isn’t it? Actually, no. Only Russia questions Ukraine’s sovereignty. Its inclusion as Article 1 is a victory for Putin as it implies Russia is granting Ukraine something it does not have or was in doubt. Ukraine is and has been sovereign. Besides, Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty and recognised its 1991 borders in the Budapest Memorandum, even pledging to defend Ukraine. Look how that turned out.
Washington’s Peace Plan is a victory for Vladimir Putin and Russia even if it is dead on arrival.
Point 7’s provision that Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future is yet another victory for Putin. It serves to justify the necessity of Putin’s invasion as this inclusion to protect Russia. It deprives both Ukrainians and Europeans in NATO of the fundamental principle of self-determination. This is perverse. NATO has never been an aggressor. By contrast, Russia’s armed intervention and invasions in Moldova’s Transnistria, Georgia’s Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the whole of Ukraine would militate that it is not Ukraine nor NATO that should be restrained but Russia itself.
The award of Ukrainian territory to Russia, including territory its invading military has failed to take, is by its very nature a capitulation of the value of the rules-based world order concept that kept Europe at peace since World War II — that is with the exception of Russian aggression. Not only would such an act reward war but would invite countless conflicts around the world by asserting “might makes right”. Rewarding aggression is antithetical to the rule of law, offends natural law and diminishes democratic principles and judicial determination as the appropriate tools to resolve conflicts and maintain peace.
If Washington were serious about peace they would not have imposed a 1-week timeline for the plan’s acceptance. It leaves little time for consultation or contemplation. Durable agreements must be reached by sober and extensive consideration. The penchant for deals over agreements must end. Washington’s Peace Plan seems to have all of the definition and consideration of a last-minute freshman term paper written the night before it was due. It has been more than a decade since Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014. A serious peace plan deserved more thought.
Washington did not invite Ukraine to the table. To the contrary, a delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church was invited to the White House and did its rounds on Capital Hill this week giving their full-throated soft-power diplomacy ample opportunity to do behind closed doors what Russian diplomats could not. The exclusion of Ukraine from the formulation of this Peace Plan was an attempt to determine Ukraine’s and Europe’s future by fiat as though it were a conquered, offending states being punished al la the Treaty of Versailles. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statement to a group of US Senators that the Washington Peace Plan was not authored by the administration but was rather a “Russian Wish List” was later rowed-back by him with the Administration now fully owning the plan. The implication is that Russia seems to be imposing its will on the Administration or that its chief foreign policy person, the Secretary of State, is clueless about his portfolio and foreign policy emanates from Steve Whitcoff and the White House not the Senate confirmed Secretary entrusted with this portfolio.
The very demand that Ukraine limit the size of its army and be deprived of certain weapon systems smacks of the punishment meted out to Germany for its aggression in World War I. No corresponding cap on Russia’s military is provided for in the plan. If, as the plan asserts, Russia has no designs on invading other countries (their playbook has always been to subvert their neighbours using the “near abroad” then coming to their aid which they contend is not an invasion) why does Russia need to retain such a large standing army? Again, such pledges by Russia have not restrained it in the past from aggression. Any expectation they would do so in the future given such a large military is obscene and turns a blind eye to experience.
Most offensive is the offer of economic rehabilitation for Russia. Not only does Washington’s Peace Plan advocate for Russia’s return to the world stage with restored trade access but it rewards Russia by using its frozen assets to rebuild the very territories they destroyed and for their own benefit. The drafters of this peace plan seem to forget Russia used armed force, conducted sham elections contrary to international law in their attempt to justify their aggression and now want to minimise Russia’s costs of cruel aggression while leaving Ukraine insufficiently funded except for promises of U.S. “cooperation” and crushing loans to reconstruct the civilian infrastructure that was illegally targeted and destroyed by Russia.
Indeed, point 12’s language that the United States will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernise, and operate Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities is disconcerting. What does “cooperate” mean? There is very precise language about amounts of Russia’s frozen assets to be used that will benefit Russia but when it comes to Ukraine the unspecified promise to “cooperate” is the best that can be asserted. Even in this ill-considered and un-developed plan there is specificity for Russia’s benefit and vagueness for Ukraine — not a deal any sane person would take.
The specific inclusion of gas infrastructure, pipelines and storage facilities, the U.S. taking 50% profits from rebuilding and investment undertakings in Ukraine and cooperation with Russia in energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centres, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities is deeply troubling. Washington seems to view this issue as an almost predatory trade and financial enrichment opportunity — not an opportunity to restore the peace, defend internationally recognised borders and take steps to deter future aggression or otherwise promote the idea the use of force should be rewarded.
Washington’s Peace Plan should be rejected outright. Not only does it represent a victory for Putin and Russia at the expense of Ukraine and Europe but it encourages future aggression around the globe. Sadly, the very proposal of such a pro-Russian plan by what was until recently the capital of the free world is a victory for Putin who now tells his people the great U.S. sees things within the context of the Russkiy Mir and the continuation of the war is due only to Ukraine’s obstinance.
Peace, not war, is a matter of promoting values. The deal Washington is attempting to force down Ukraine’s throat is an abandonment of all that it once held dear as a Republic, with democratic values which one favoured the rule of law.
