When I started writing this piece I was hearing Bob Marley, in my head, singing No Woman, No Cry… Hence the title.
Many in the West, especially among US politicians and the US-mainstream media, harbor the fantasy that there will be a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine that conforms with the 28-point plan that was leaked to the press more than a month ago. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Donald Trump is serious about reaching a deal with Russia that meets the demands that President Putin outlined last Friday during his end of the year press conference (see here, Vladimir Putin Leaves No Doubt About Russia’s Demands to End the War in Ukraine… Do Donald Trump and Steve Witkoff Understand?).
I believe there is one demand that Putin did not mention and, to my knowledge, has not stated in public… The deal with the US must be a treaty that is ratified by the US Senate. Unless the agreement is concluded as a treaty, any promise by Donald Trump comes with an expiration date and will be ignored or rejected by US politicians and the Deep State.
Why do I say that? Let’s review what Senator Lindsey Graham said on Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press where he discussed ongoing efforts to negotiate a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine. He expressed support for a deal but emphasized strong conditions and consequences if Russia rejects it. Graham said that he wants a peace deal “that would prevent a third invasion” of Ukraine by Russia (referring to the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 full-scale invasion). He even conceded that not all Russian-occupied territory would be returned: “We’re not going to evict every Russian out of Ukraine, I understand that.”
But he called for robust security guarantees for Ukraine, including potential European troops on the ground and US commitments. That is a deal breaker for the Russians. Graham warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin is rebuffing negotiation efforts and may continue seizing territory (e.g., Donbas) unless pressure increases. He said the US risks “overestimating” Putin’s desire for peace. Graham was sending a not so subtle warning to his golfing buddy, Donald Trump.
Graham then said that if Putin refuses the current proposal, President Trump must “dramatically change the game” by escalating support for Ukraine, including providing Tomahawk cruise missiles to strike Russian drone and missile factories inside Russia. He stated he would “go all in” in that scenario.
Graham is assuming that the viable proposal is the 28-point plan, or some modification of it, but based on what President Putin said on Friday that plan is dead-on-arrival. Retired four-star General Jack Keane, a Fox News senior strategic analyst, appeared on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, and echoed what Graham said on NBC. Keane emphasized that it remains unclear where Russian President Vladimir Putin stands on the negotiations. He expressed caution about Putin’s willingness to make meaningful concessions or commit to a lasting peace deal.
Graham and Keane’s emphasis on robust security guarantees is nothing more than a euphemism for buying Ukraine more time to rearm and continue the war with Russia. Their view of security guarantees entails six elements:
NATO Article 5-like Mutual Defense Pledge: A core proposal in recent U.S.-led talks: Commitments modeled on NATO’s Article 5, where an attack on Ukraine is treated as an attack on guarantors, triggering a military response. U.S. officials have described this as “Article 5-like” with explicit US involvement, making Russia doubt impunity for renewed invasion. This could be ratified by Congress for durability.
Deployment of Multinational (Primarily European) Troops in Ukraine: A European-led “multinational force” (e.g., Coalition of the Willing) operating inside Ukraine post-ceasefire, including peacekeeping, monitoring borders, and deterring aggression. Supported by US intelligence/logistics but without permanent US ground troops (which leaves open the possibility of temporary deployments). Sen. Lindsey Graham has explicitly called for “European troops on the ground” to prevent a “third invasion.”
Long-Term Military Aid and Rebuilding Ukraine’s Forces: Sustained weapons supplies, training, and a strengthened Ukrainian military (e.g., peacetime force of ~800,000). Includes rebuilding defense industries and providing advanced systems like air/missile defenses to protect against Russian strikes.
Enhanced Intelligence Sharing and Air Defense Support: Increased US intelligence access and robust allied air defenses (ground- or air-based) inside Ukraine. Proposals include rotating allied aircraft patrols (similar to NATO’s Baltic Air Policing) to secure skies and deter violations.
Legally Binding Multilateral or Bilateral Treaties: Treaties specifying automatic responses (military assistance, sanctions reinstatement) to aggression. Unlike vague memoranda, these are ratified and enforceable, potentially involving oversight/deconfliction mechanisms.
Economic and Sanctions Deterrents: Automatic reimposition of global sanctions, withdrawal of any territorial recognitions, or other benefits if Russia breaches the deal. Tied to monitoring mechanisms for ceasefire compliance.
Russia would welcome point five, but only on the terms outlined by President Putin last Friday. The rest of the security guarantees the political leaders in the West want will be, or have been, completely rejected by Russia. My point is simple… If Trump reaches a deal with Putin that concedes to Russia’s demands first presented by Putin on 14 June 2024, it will be met with staunch opposition in the US and in Europe. Regardless of what Trump promises to Putin, the agreement will carry no weight unless ratified by the US Senate as a treaty. At this point I do not believe that there two-thirds of the US Senators present would vote in favor of such a treaty.
I continue to believe that while Putin will continue to try to normalize relations with the US — at least as long as Trump is in office — he also understands that Russia’s only security guarantee is the military defeat of Ukraine and, by extension, Ukraine’s NATO masters.