Columns 
Originally published on The Ukrainian Weekly
When, oh when, will the Trump Administration learn that war criminal Vladimir Putin does not want peace in Ukraine and that the only response to his maximalist demands is maximum pressure?
The recent bizarre, erratic 28-point peace initiative aimed at ending the war in Ukraine may go down in diplomatic history, and not in a good way.
The shocking Trump Administration proposal was heavily skewed toward Russia. This is not surprising, as it had substantial input from Moscow. It offered far too many concessions to Putin. It was less about peace and more about U.S. companies doing business with Russia.
The initiative was met with a firestorm of criticism on both its substance and for the chaotic way in which it was presented – and not only from abroad, but from the American media, analysts, the public and Congress. Significantly, strong disapproval came from Congress, notably Republican senators (I’ll say more on what Congress can do later).
The blowback was more than amply justified, as acceptance of this skewed proposal would have amounted to Ukraine’s submission – indeed, its capitulation.
Pushback came from Ukraine and from Europe. European leaders were blindsided by the proposal and stunned by how favorable it was to Russia. They quickly came up with a counterproposal that managed to get rid of some of the most egregious and unpalatable provisions. Bear in mind that the counterproposal and subsequent modifications are still bad, but not as horribly one-sided as the initial plan. The current proposal at least seems to offer a foundation for future negotiations.
What has the Kremlin’s response to these proposals been? Predictably, Russian rockets and drones continue to pummel Ukrainian cities, killing and injuring scores of innocent Ukrainian civilians, including children.
Some observers claim that Mr. Trump’s desire to end the war is admirable and sincere. I have my doubts, as I believe that Mr. Trump cares not one wit about how peace is achieved. Nor does he care about such quaint notions as freedom, justice, democracy and sovereignty. The rules-based international order means nothing to him. So what if “peace” amounts to Ukraine’s surrender? Perhaps someone should tell Mr. Trump that the Nobel Peace Prize goes to those who work toward achieving a durable and just peace, not accepting a sovereign, democratic nation’s capitulation.
Special Envoy to Russia Steve Witkoff’s role in the initial “peace proposal” fiasco was central, raising the question of whether his job is to be a mediator or a tool of the Kremlin. He even offered Russian negotiators tips on working with Mr. Trump. In Mr. Witkoff, Putin has no better American friend. I used to think that Mr. Witkoff was simply naïve about Ukraine, and ignorant about Russia’s long imperial history and Putin’s genocidal attempts to eradicate Ukraine, but I’ve become convinced that his ignorance is willful. He simply doesn’t care. What Mr. Witkoff seems to care about most is creating business opportunities with Russia, and Ukraine gets in the way. Mr. Trump should fire him. Instead, he sends him to Moscow on December 2 to continue negotiations on a peace framework. As I write this, they seem to have gone nowhere.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has done damage control in response to Mr. Witkoff’s flagrantly pro-Russian stance and brought some coherence to the U.S. initiative. In meetings in Geneva and Florida, he helped to narrow differences and bring U.S. and Ukrainian positions more in line with each other. But is he driving the U.S. efforts or is Mr. Witkoff? If you are confused, you’re not alone. And then there’s Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll, a possible new player in this saga who appears to have replaced Ukraine special envoy Gen. Keith Kellogg. Mr. Kellogg, who is perceived in some quarters in the Trump Administration as being too pro-Ukrainian, has been sidelined and is departing in January. One thing that gives me pause about Mr. Driscoll is that he is an ally of Vice President JD Vance, whose record on Ukraine leaves a lot to be desired, to put it mildly.
Might Putin be compelled into some sort of peace arrangement based on the revised versions of the plan? I seriously doubt it. Can even a ceasefire that might pave the way for further settlement negotiations be achieved? Possible, but not likely (Whether any ceasefire would be honored by Moscow, given its post-2014 track record, is an altogether separate discussion). Thus far, Putin and his minions have played their usual game of saying they are open to serious negotiations, while pouring cold water on any peace framework, suggesting that they will continue to adhere to their maximalist imperialist agenda. Any negotiations will be difficult. Kyiv, for instance, calls for a ceasefire along existing lines, but Moscow insists that Kyiv pull back and give up the territory in Donetsk Oblast that it still controls. Besides, Moscow wants to buy time to try to expand its recent, albeit modest, territorial gains in the Donbas, and it wants to delay additional sanctions.
Look for Putin to continue his past practice of stalling and slow walking any peace efforts, as he counts on the Trump Administration to muscle Ukrainians to extract maximum concessions from the victims of Putin’s war. There is widespread recognition that a deal involving hard compromises will at some point need to be made, but Ukraine cannot afford to submit to a lopsided deal that threatens its very security and sovereignty.
So, what is to be done to make progress on ending the war? Two words: maximum pressure.
This means implementing and expanding crippling sanctions on both Russia and countries that import Russian energy, including closing loopholes and seriously going after Russia’s shadow fleet. It means providing Ukraine with the military assistance it needs, including advanced strategic weapons such as long-range missiles to strike at the aggressor’s energy infrastructure. It means finally utilizing the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets for military, financial and reconstruction assistance – whether it be a loan or some other mechanism. It means the European Union finding a way to get Belgium, where most of the immobilized assets sit, to release the money.
The U.S. Congress, which on a bipartisan basis continues to back Ukraine, must become more engaged. Perhaps key Republican senators in the leadership and the chairs of key committees, virtually all of whom have a positive track record of supporting Ukraine, need to pay a visit to the White House. They need to share their views about the disastrous consequences to our own national security should any deal be forced down the throat of the courageous, resilient and relentlessly freedom-loving Ukrainian people.
Influential senators have already been highly critical of Mr. Witkoff’s initial peace plan, among them Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), who serves as chairman of both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission). He put it bluntly: “This so-called ‘peace plan’ has real problems, and I am highly skeptical it will achieve peace. Ukraine should not be forced to give up its lands to one of the world’s most flagrant war criminals in Vladimir Putin.”
Congressional Republicans need to stiffen their spines when it comes to Mr. Trump. The Senate needs to pass the Sanctioning Russia Act, which, despite a remarkably high 85 co-sponsors, has been languishing for 8 months, waiting for Mr. Trump to greenlight a vote. It’s past time. In the House, a bipartisan effort is being led by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) to collect enough signatures for a discharge petition to force a vote on a companion Russia sanctions bill. There is also a bill, the Ukraine Support Act, introduced earlier this year by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) that would provide comprehensive support for Ukraine. This bill not only sanctions Russia but also provides direct military and financial aid and provides for Ukraine’s reconstruction. As of this writing, the bill only needs three additional discharge petition signatures to force a vote in the House. Or elements of both bills could be combined. Passage of legislation with more teeth – one that not only penalizes Russia but concretely helps Ukraine – would really be something.
Congress should also send a powerful message by moving expeditiously on other introduced bills and resolutions, including recognizing Russian actions in Ukraine as a genocide; condemning and calling for the return of Ukrainian children abducted by Russia before any peace agreement is finalized; expanding the REPO Act allowing for the seizure and use of Russian assets; and designating Russia as a State Sponsor of Terrorism, among others.
I am confident that the American people will stand with those who stand with Ukraine. Recent polling shows strong continuing support for Ukraine from both Democrats and Republicans, and an increasing desire for a stronger American role in support of Ukraine. Indeed, most individuals who voted for Mr. Trump want tougher sanctions on Russia and blame Putin, who is viewed unfavorably by nearly 9 out of 10 Americans, for the absence of peace in Ukraine. Let’s hope that the administration and Congress follow the will of the public and do what’s right and what’s smart to help Ukraine maintain its freedom and sovereignty.