The Art of Surrender: Trump’s Pro-Kremlin Ceasefire Deal And Preventing The Worst-Case Scenario.

• President Trump’s latest outburst on Truth Social- accusing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of obstructing peace talks - affirms a central point these Cables have long warned about: Trump’s primary objective is not durable peace but the appearance of one—a ceasefire he can claim credit for, even if it rests on sand.

• The focal point of the outburst?

• Crimea. Trump blasted Zelensky for his refusal to recognize the peninsula as Russian territory - remarkably, an act that would violate not only Ukraine’s constitution but also U.S. law and long-standing international norms.

The Crimea Declaration That Haunts Trump’s Claim

Zelensky responded swiftly, posting the 2018 "Crimea Declaration" by then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Trump’s own appointee, which stated unambiguously:

“As we did in the Welles Declaration in 1940, the United States reaffirms as policy its refusal to recognize the Kremlin’s claims of sovereignty over territory seized by force in contravention of international law. In concert with allies, partners, and the international community, the United States rejects Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea and pledges to maintain this policy until Ukraine’s territorial integrity is restored.” — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Declaration, July 25, 2018 [emphasis added].

• That declaration remains U.S. policy.

• It was crafted in alignment with international law, specifically the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, both of which prohibit territorial acquisition by force.

• Trump’s public position now contradicts this cornerstone of Western diplomacy.

• Worse still, his rhetoric implies a willingness to bulldoze over these principles for the sake of a headline-grabbing “deal.”

A Constitutional Non-Starter

• Zelensky, for his part, couldn’t agree to Russian sovereignty over Crimea even if he wanted to.

• Ukraine’s constitution enshrines its territorial integrity. Any legal change would require:

• A constitutional amendment with a supermajority in the Rada (Ukraine’s parliament), or

• A national referendum, for which there is zero popular support.

• Polls consistently show over 80% of Ukrainians oppose any territorial concessions (let alone legal recognition of annexed territory), and recent battlefield sacrifices have only hardened public sentiment.

• Even without Zelensky on top, even a Russian-installed puppet regime would struggle to meet the legal or political conditions to legitimize such a concession.

A Contradiction at the Heart of Trump’s Statement

• Strangely, Trump’s post also insists, “No one is asking Zelenskyy to recognize Crimea as Russian territory.” But if that’s the case, why attack him for not doing so?

• Why make such a big deal out of this?

• Unless of course Trump himself is preparing to recognize Crimea as part of Russia and doesn’t want the move to be seen as too radical - too pro-Kremlin.

• This contradiction exposes the bad-faith nature of the intervention.

• So the only logical conclusion is that Trump himself is entertaining the idea of unilaterally recognizing Crimea as part of Russia, even if Ukraine refuses to concede. That would:

• Mark a dramatic break with U.S. foreign policy dating back to 1945.

• Embolden Putin, effectively legitimizing territorial conquest by force.

• Send a dangerous signal to other authoritarian regimes (China, Iran etc) that post-invasion “diplomacy” can retroactively justify and legalize aggression.

The Real Objective: Optics Over Outcomes

• None of this should be surprising.

• As these Cables have consistently noted, Trump is not seeking the best deal for either Ukraine or the U.S.—he is seeking a deal he can brand as a success.

• His logic is clear:

• Engineer a ceasefire that halts the fighting (even if temporary and fragile).

• Recognize Crimea to “remove the obstacle.”

• Claim to have succeeded where Biden and Obama have “failed.”

• Such a move would create a superficial calm that enables Trump to walk away with a photo op, a handshake, and another campaign line.

• It would also box in Ukraine diplomatically, split the West further, and undermine any leverage Kyiv might hold in negotiations.

A Gift to Putin, A Message to Tyrants

• The most dangerous consequence, however, lies in the precedent this sets. If Crimea’s illegal annexation is recognized unilaterally by the U.S., then:

• Russia secures a major strategic and symbolic victory without further concessions.

• Putin learns that patient aggression, followed by a media-savvy negotiation, is a workable path to rebuilding the Russian empire.

• There will be global repercussions: Taiwan, the South China Sea, the Golan Heights, and other disputed regions become bargaining chips, not legal questions.

• This would not be a peace - it would be appeasement and reward for aggression.

• Trump’s latest remarks are not just a gaffe or a provocation.

• They signal a potential sea change in U.S. foreign policy - one that prizes spectacle over substance, concessions over commitments, and individual whim over institutional norms.

Not All Is Lost: Silver Linings in a Murky Landscape

• There are, surprisingly, some silver linings emerging.

• A day after publicly attacking Zelensky, Donald Trump posted a follow-up message on Truth social criticizing Russia for launching missile attacks on Kyiv - including one that directly addressed Vladimir Putin with the words, “Vladimir, stop.”

• The tone is worth noting.

• Trump uses first-name familiarity with Putin, while his tone toward Zelensky remains distant and cold.

• Even when trying to appear tough, his language toward Putin is softer - almost endearing.

• But, why the shift?

• Likely due to backlash: pressure from NATO allies, social media reactions, and dissent within his own party may have compelled him to sprinkle in some anti-Putin rhetoric.

• It’s minimal, but at this point, any glimmer of resolve counts as progress.

U.S. Red Lines and Encouraging Signs

• On a more substantive level, reports suggest the U.S. would not support any ceasefire deal that requires Ukraine to demilitarize or abandon its defense industry.

• This is encouraging.

• It’s an obvious right of any sovereign nation, but under Trump’s unpredictable leanings toward the Kremlin, even such baseline commitments are victories.

• The assurance that Ukraine will be able to rebuild and expand its military, especially with European help, opens the door to long-term deterrence.

• This could lead to significant industrial cooperation.

• Expect long-term joint military production contracts between European defense giants and Ukraine to deepen and scale, helping Ukraine build a 21st-century defense infrastructure.

Three Strategic Must-Haves for U.S. Policy On Ceasefire

• Still, to avoid a complete capitulation to Putin, there are three basic commitments that must be secured.

• These initiatives will not come from Trump himself, but those around him (like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, Ukraine Envoy Keith Kellogg) who still prioritize U.S. national security, interests, and prestige over appeasement can and must push for these absolute minimums:

• 1. Maintain Existing Sanctions

• The U.S. must not lift sanctions imposed on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine unless Russia fully withdraws from occupied territories.

• Anything less would reward aggression.

• If sanctions are reversed simply because Russia “held on long enough,” it sends a catastrophic message to dictators: endure, outlast, then win legitimacy.

• 2. NATO Article 5 Must Apply to Any Future Peacekeepers in Ukraine

• Any European-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine - be it from France, the U.K., or other European countries as part of the “coalition of the willing” must fall under NATO’s Article 5 protection.

• (side note: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had previously stated that Article V protections wouldn’t cover any peacekeepers in Ukraine - this must be overruled.)

• If NATO’s security umbrella doesn’t apply to them, what is the alliance even for?

• Why should European states stay tethered to U.S.-led defense if America won’t uphold mutual defense obligations in the face of Russian aggression?

• With Russia growing more dangerous and militarily savvy, undermining Article 5 would gut NATO’s credibility and purpose.

• 3. Continue Arms Sales to Ukraine and Europe

• Even if Trump opposes arming Ukraine cost-free (even in the face of strong reasons to do so both on moral or geopolitical grounds), the U.S. must at minimum assert its right to sell weapons to Ukraine going forward.

• Germany, the U.K., and Ukraine are all willing to pay for systems like HIMARS, Patriots, and fighter jets.

• This must be non-negotiable.

• Any suggestion that U.S. weapons sales are on the table in negotiations would embolden Putin.

• As Zelensky has made clear, Kyiv is willing to pay - and so are the Europeans.

A Low Bar, but Better Than Nothing

• A year ago, these demands wouldn’t have needed stating.

• Today, they represent the bare minimum.

• But if they hold, they could prevent a total strategic collapse in U.S. posture toward Ukraine and Russia.

• And perhaps more importantly, they would provide Ukraine the means to survive, deter, and eventually thrive - with or without American political consistency.

• Additionally, if America’s word is to mean anything on the global stage, both Congress and the foreign policy establishment (and senior policymakers in the Trump admin) will need to draw a clear red line: Crimea is Ukraine.

• And that any unilateral recognition would not just be illegitimate - it would be catastrophic.