Everyone wants peace in Ukraine. But Russia wants it on Russian terms, which means no more Ukraine.
Ukraine wants it on Ukraine’s terms — Russia back in Russia, not in Ukraine. And those not directly involved in the war fall into one group or the other — the pro-Russian camp or the pro-Ukrainian camp.
Two of the most conspicuous pro-Russians in America happen to be prominent members of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign: Ohio Sen. JD Vance and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Neither Vance nor Kennedy would describe themselves as pro-Russian, but their hostility toward arming and equipping Ukraine since early in the conflict — odiously cloaked under calls to deescalate hostilities — has done much to advance Russia’s military goals.
If elected, it is likely that a Trump administration would push for a peace advantageous to Russia.
It’s important to review what that means. Russia wants Crimea plus four other Ukrainian regions — Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia — much but not all of which are currently occupied by Russian troops. It also wants to “demilitarize” Ukraine, and to prevent Ukraine from entering into any military alliances with European neighbors. Ukraine would be prohibited from joining NATO.
This is the peace for which Kennedy and Vance are hoping: A defenseless and small Ukraine that is dependent on Russia for its existence.
The problem is that Ukrainians already tried Russia’s peace. It didn’t work. As of 2014, the country was largely demilitarized, its air force a shadow of its current self, its military largely existing on paper. Russia’s first invasion, coming on the heels of the Maidan Revolution, helped spur a wave of volunteerism in Ukraine’s military that filled its empty ranks with motivated and idealistic citizens.
They fought, harder and better than Russia expected, which resulted in a cease-fire agreement with Russia in 2015 known as Minsk II. This temporary peace left Russia in de facto control of Crimea plus two chunks of Ukraine cynically called the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics. Russia was left short of its aims, but this was very damaging to Ukraine nevertheless.
To impose Russia’s peace on Ukraine through diplomacy would lead to two major consequences. First, the roughly 4 million Ukrainian refugees currently in Europe and the U.S. would stay, rather than returning home to a country they know is not secure from Russian invasion.
Second, a mass exodus of Ukrainians would commence. This would be made up of at least several million people — those Ukrainians who took part in military operations against Russia, plus their families, and those politicians, journalists, nonprofit volunteers and civil servants who worked for an independent and free Ukraine, and their families. There is a possibility that many more would leave. They would flee to Europe and America. Only the most patriotic and fearless Ukrainians would stay in a defenseless Ukraine.
In other words, peace on Russia’s terms would result in around 8 to 12 million (and possibly more) Ukrainians staying in Europe or the U.S., or fleeing there, with no hope of return.
What are Vance’s and RFK Jr.’s plans for these millions of refugees? Well, if you ask Vance about immigration, he’ll tell you he plans to deport immigrants. This isn’t a plan at all. Taking it at face value, it’s a death sentence for Ukrainians at worst, and a lazy dodge at best.
To his credit, Trump has recently taken a step back from the Vance-Kennedy wing. Following his meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in late September, Trump pledged to push for a “fair” peace for Ukraine. By definition, such a peace would not be that preferred by Russia.
The Democratic ticket of Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz hasn’t announced a viable plan to support Ukraine in its war of defense to push Russia out of Ukrainian territory and seek justice for Russia’s invasion. There is no clear path to victory for Ukraine. But the Republican ticket doesn’t have a viable plan to end the war without creating death and misery for millions and destabilizing Europe and the U.S.
It’s convenient to say “not our problem,” but either way you want to cut it, adding 1 percent to the population of Europe and the U.S. in the space of a month or being bystanders to a genocide of Ukrainians, it’s going to affect us.
Those who claim to want peace on Russia’s terms must present the details of how that will actually work in reality — something more than empty words. For the rest of us, the approximately 70 percent of Americans who desire peace for Ukraine on Ukraine’s terms, it would be nice to hear how Harris and Walz aim to achieve that.
Adrian Bonenberger is a writer and a veteran of the U.S. Army. He is a co-founder of American Veterans for Ukraine.
