Ricardo Sánchez Serra*.
The war between Russia and Ukraine has generated global concern since its inception, and proposals to end the conflict have varied in approach and feasibility. Against this backdrop, US President Donald Trump has reportedly presented a peace plan that could end the war. However, Russia's reaction and the realities on the ground raise serious doubts about its implementation.
What was circulated about the peace plan
Trump's peace plan includes several key measures, including a ceasefire: A cessation of hostilities that would begin on April 20, 2025. A peace agreement, mediated by the United States, China, the European Union and countries in the Global South such as Brazil and India to negotiate it.
In addition, elections are planned to be held in Ukraine at the end of August 2025. It is important to note that Ukraine would renounce its membership in NATO and declare its neutrality.
The United States is also expected to support the modernization of the Ukrainian armed forces.
Other items that have not been disclosed but are likely to be proposed include the territory liberated by Russia being placed under its control, as well as Crimea for good. Sanctions imposed on Russia would be lifted and its assets confiscated by the West would be returned, actions that lacked a legal basis. This has raised concerns about the safety of international funds in Western banks, questioning the reliability of the global financial system.
Russian reaction
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has expressed skepticism toward Trump’s plan. Ryabkov said: “We are open to dialogue, ready to negotiate firmly, taking into account the realities ‘on the ground’ and our national interests, predetermined by history and geography.” This stance reflects an inherent distrust of Western proposals, based on previous experiences of deception and manipulation.
We believe that Russia would not agree to a ceasefire “just like that.” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban had already proposed it, but without success. Russia had been deceived several times before, such as in the case of the unfulfilled promises regarding NATO’s expansion towards its borders, the grain agreements, where, although Russia allowed free trade, the second part was not fulfilled by NATO or the US, which was the authorization for Russia to buy spare parts for agricultural machinery and for a Russian bank to enter the Swift system.
Similarly, when the Istanbul Accords were about to be signed in April 2022, Russian forces were asked to withdraw troops surrounding kyiv. Complying with this request, Russia withdrew its troops; however, under pressure from Britain, Ukraine refused to sign the agreements. It had all been a ruse to gain time.
These incidents have reinforced the Russian perception that a ceasefire could be used by Ukraine and its allies to procrastinate and build up their military strength.
The complicated thing
A key aspect of Trump's plan is the territorial question. Russia insists on maintaining control over the territories it has liberated, including Donbas and Crimea, whose inhabitants are predominantly pro-Russian.
Russia will not back down on this point. The Russian special military operation was intended to protect Russian-speaking and Russian-cultural inhabitants from Ukrainian bombings. These bombings, carried out by nationalist and neo-Nazi governments since 2014 against the civilian population of Donbas, caused 14 deaths. The Russian intervention was legally justified under international law (“casus belli”) due to Ukraine’s failure to comply with the Minsk I and II Agreements. The Ukrainian governments had, de facto, lost their authority in those territories and the respect of their inhabitants.
Similarly, implementing Trump's plan faces several significant challenges, as the United States and other Western allies continue to supply arms to Ukraine, undermining peace intentions. The delivery of Mirage 2000 and F-16 aircraft by France and the Netherlands respectively also contributes to escalating the conflict.
Frankly speaking, how can the United States bring about an end to the war if it has not stopped the shipment of arms to Ukraine? What kind of arbiter can it be if its good intentions are undermined by the continued supply of weapons? Nevertheless, I must state that I am convinced that negotiations and mediation efforts remain essential to finding a path to peace that prioritizes the security and well-being of all people involved.
It is clear that Russia could end the war quickly, but this would result in a high number of civilian casualties. For this reason, the conflict has been prolonged.
more obstacles
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's term expired on May 20, 2024. According to the Ukrainian Constitution, he is not authorized to sign a peace agreement, and a law prohibits peace talks with Russia. This raises the question of who would represent Ukraine at the signing of a peace agreement, turning the situation into a potential pantomime.
Alternatively, the peace could not be signed by Ukraine, but could be signed by Russia on the one hand, and by NATO and the United States on the other. This would be similar to what happened in Korea, as former Foreign Minister Francisco Tudela recalls: the ceasefire was signed by North Korea and the United States, with the authorization of South Korea, which intended to continue the war to reunify the peninsula.
On the other hand, more than 50% of Ukrainians want peace with Russia, which leaves Zelensky without support to continue the war, due to the high human and economic cost that this conflict represents for Ukraine. The Ukrainian political leadership has suffered great discredit after allegations and accusations of living luxuriously, buying cars and houses in Europe, while their children vacation in other countries, all this while the country faces a war. This perception of corruption and inequality - added to the unpopular forced conscriptions - have increased frustration among the population.
What emerged from Trump's peace plan, while optimistic and bold, faces serious challenges. Mistrust between the parties, political and territorial realities, and internal divisions in Ukraine complicate its implementation.
Lifting sanctions and returning assets seized by the West are also sticking points. Russia sees these measures as essential to restoring trust and ensuring its economic security. However, meeting these demands may prove difficult for Western countries, which fear that giving in to Russian demands could set a dangerous precedent, even though they themselves imposed the sanctions.
As negotiations continue, it is crucial that all parties involved work together in good faith to find a solution that ensures the security, justice and well-being of all those affected by the conflict. Only through sincere dialogue and balanced compromises will it be possible to achieve lasting peace in Ukraine.
*World journalism award “Honest Vision 2023”