[Goose]

Axios reporting on Trump's reported "final offer" for US involvement in peace talks:

https://www.axios.com/2025/04/22/trump-r...mea-donbas

What Russia gets
What Russia gets:

1. "De jure" U.S. recognition of Russian control in Crimea.
   
2. "De-facto recognition" of the Russia's occupation of nearly all of Luhansk oblast and the occupied portions of Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
   
3. A promise that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO. The text notes that Ukraine could become part of the European Union.
   
4. The lifting of sanctions imposed since 2014.
   
5. Enhanced economic cooperation with the U.S., particularly in the energy and industrial sectors.
   

What Ukraine gets:

1. "A robust security guarantee" involving an ad hoc group of European countries and potentially also like-minded non-European countries. The document is vague in terms of how this peacekeeping operation would function and does not mention any U.S. participation.
   
2. The return of the small part of Kharkiv oblast Russia has occupied.
   
3. Unimpeded passage of the Dnieper River, which runs along the front line in parts of southern Ukraine.
   
4. Compensation and assistance for rebuilding, though the document does not say where the funding will come from.
   

Thus far I have not seen any real signs that Putin is willing to accept any deal, so the first big question is if this is even in the cards on the Russian side. Politically, I'm not sure how well this would play in Ukraine, but to be frank given the circumstances an essential freezing of the front lines is probably in Ukraine's favor given the unlikelihood of regaining significant territory through a counter-offensive. 

Of course, Ukraine understands any agreement with Russia is hardly worth the paper it is printed on, so the question becomes if Ukraine thinks the time spent in a cease fire is more beneficial for themselves or for Russia? I would be inclined to think that the time to refortify, reconstitute men and material etc, while beneficial to both sides, would favor the defender more on balance.

The real problem with any "security guarantee" is that Russia can be 98% (maybe more) certain that none of the countries offering the guarantee will actually fight. If they intended to do so, they would already be doing it. Ukraine's only chance in the present war was to use massive aid from  outside sources to literally drive the Russian army out of Ukraine. They were unable to do so. One could discuss why that was true and who was to "blame" forever. I expect many books are already being written. The fact that few people seemed to understand that is what amazes me. I can see Ukraine not being willing to publicly state that belief, even if the held it. The "west" OTOH should have understood that was the case from the start. As I have previously stated IMO both Ukraine and the "west" assumed Russia would just quit when it became apparent that the cost of victory was "too high". Intention vs Capability got us again.
 
Going forward, the Ukrainian government is saying it wants to develop a new military that is so powerful Russia will not dare attack Ukraine. They use Israel as a notional model. The problem is that Israel's opponents while large in number have never actually united against Israel. Most of these countries are not very militarily powerful. Many of them have internal problems that keep them from greatly strengthening their military. Most of them are not well off. Russia is a much more serious opponent. Ukraine was never in the same economic class as Russia even before the war. Russia's GDP per capita in 2020 was 2.7 times that of Ukraine. In 2024 it was 2.9 times. Ukraine is also going to need massive capital infusion to restore the rump country that remains. The idea that Ukraine alone will ever be able to "deter" Russia without obtaining nuclear weapons and a credible deliver system is IMO a fantasy. Ukraine hoped that NATO membership would do that. It might if it were available to them. The question would be whether these countries that won't fight for Ukraine today would do so if Ukraine invoked Article 5. We will never know, because there are many countries that are members of NATO today (including the US) who will never allow that question to be come relevant. Ukraine isn't ever joining NATO. Russia wouldn't like it, but neither does lots of NATO.

Who has the most to gain from a cease-fire depends on which side has the better means to restore/increase their forces. The current proposal as I understand it involves the "west", particularly the US removing sanctions against Russia. That will be an absolutely massive advantage for the Russian economy. There is no equivalent opportunity available to Ukraine. Russia can also continue increasing its manpower available to fight. It is unclear Ukraine can do the same. For these reasons IMO Russia will strategically benefit much more from a pause than Ukraine will. The morale benefits are arguable. One possibility is that the Ukrainian population sees no viable way ahead for Ukraine and starts migrating elsewhere. Soldiers decide further resistance is futile and leave the military. OTOH the Russian population may find out a lot more about their losses and have time to contemplate what little benefit occupying the part of Ukraine they already have actually provides. It is not a victory for Putin. The Ukrainian government still exists and Ukraine still exists. Putin may have many more questions to answer about why that is so. I have no idea what happens there.

[Goose]

Axios reporting on Trump's reported "final offer" for US involvement in peace talks:

https://www.axios.com/2025/04/22/trump-r...mea-donbas

What Russia gets
What Russia gets:

1. "De jure" U.S. recognition of Russian control in Crimea.
   
2. "De-facto recognition" of the Russia's occupation of nearly all of Luhansk oblast and the occupied portions of Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
   
3. A promise that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO. The text notes that Ukraine could become part of the European Union.
   
4. The lifting of sanctions imposed since 2014.
   
5. Enhanced economic cooperation with the U.S., particularly in the energy and industrial sectors.
   

What Ukraine gets:

1. "A robust security guarantee" involving an ad hoc group of European countries and potentially also like-minded non-European countries. The document is vague in terms of how this peacekeeping operation would function and does not mention any U.S. participation.
   
2. The return of the small part of Kharkiv oblast Russia has occupied.
   
3. Unimpeded passage of the Dnieper River, which runs along the front line in parts of southern Ukraine.
   
4. Compensation and assistance for rebuilding, though the document does not say where the funding will come from.
   

Thus far I have not seen any real signs that Putin is willing to accept any deal, so the first big question is if this is even in the cards on the Russian side. Politically, I'm not sure how well this would play in Ukraine, but to be frank given the circumstances an essential freezing of the front lines is probably in Ukraine's favor given the unlikelihood of regaining significant territory through a counter-offensive. 

Of course, Ukraine understands any agreement with Russia is hardly worth the paper it is printed on, so the question becomes if Ukraine thinks the time spent in a cease fire is more beneficial for themselves or for Russia? I would be inclined to think that the time to refortify, reconstitute men and material etc, while beneficial to both sides, would favor the defender more on balance.

The real problem with any "security guarantee" is that Russia can be 98% (maybe more) certain that none of the countries offering the guarantee will actually fight. If they intended to do so, they would already be doing it. Ukraine's only chance in the present war was to use massive aid from  outside sources to literally drive the Russian army out of Ukraine. They were unable to do so. One could discuss why that was true and who was to "blame" forever. I expect many books are already being written. The fact that few people seemed to understand that is what amazes me. I can see Ukraine not being willing to publicly state that belief, even if the held it. The "west" OTOH should have understood that was the case from the start. As I have previously stated IMO both Ukraine and the "west" assumed Russia would just quit when it became apparent that the cost of victory was "too high". Intention vs Capability got us again.
 
Going forward, the Ukrainian government is saying it wants to develop a new military that is so powerful Russia will not dare attack Ukraine. They use Israel as a notional model. The problem is that Israel's opponents while large in number have never actually united against Israel. Most of these countries are not very militarily powerful. Many of them have internal problems that keep them from greatly strengthening their military. Most of them are not well off. Russia is a much more serious opponent. Ukraine was never in the same economic class as Russia even before the war. Russia's GDP per capita in 2020 was 2.7 times that of Ukraine. In 2024 it was 2.9 times. Ukraine is also going to need massive capital infusion to restore the rump country that remains. The idea that Ukraine alone will ever be able to "deter" Russia without obtaining nuclear weapons and a credible deliver system is IMO a fantasy. Ukraine hoped that NATO membership would do that. It might if it were available to them. The question would be whether these countries that won't fight for Ukraine today would do so if Ukraine invoked Article 5. We will never know, because there are many countries that are members of NATO today (including the US) who will never allow that question to be come relevant. Ukraine isn't ever joining NATO. Russia wouldn't like it, but neither does lots of NATO.

Who has the most to gain from a cease-fire depends on which side has the better means to restore/increase their forces. The current proposal as I understand it involves the "west", particularly the US removing sanctions against Russia. That will be an absolutely massive advantage for the Russian economy. There is no equivalent opportunity available to Ukraine. Russia can also continue increasing its manpower available to fight. It is unclear Ukraine can do the same. For these reasons IMO Russia will strategically benefit much more from a pause than Ukraine will. The morale benefits are arguable. One possibility is that the Ukrainian population sees no viable way ahead for Ukraine and starts migrating elsewhere. Soldiers decide further resistance is futile and leave the military. OTOH the Russian population may find out a lot more about their losses and have time to contemplate what little benefit occupying the part of Ukraine they already have actually provides. It is not a victory for Putin. The Ukrainian government still exists and Ukraine still exists. Putin may have many more questions to answer about why that is so. I have no idea what happens there.