Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began in 2014, Moscow’s aggression against its neighbour has gone through several significant phases, from the annexation of Crimea, to mounting insurgency in the Donbas, to its full-scale invasion of Ukraine proper in 2022 and a subsequent seesaw of back-and-forth offensives.
With the Trump Administration in full swing, the war has entered a new phase: “peace” negotiations. During his 2024 campaign, President Donald Trump made it clear that he intended to end the conflict, and now that he is in office, he has taken steps in that direction. However, the manner in which these peace talks began in 2025 raises concerns about what this “peace” might actually look like.
On February 18, the United States and Russia began talks in Saudi Arabia on ending the war. Representing Washington were Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. On the Russian side, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Putin’s foreign policy advisor, Yuri Uskavo, led the discussions.
However, the key point to note is that Ukraine was not present at the table for these talks! When diplomatic negotiations take place, especially those revolving around peace, it is essential that all key parties – especially the belligerents – be involved in the proceedings. Without such an essential factor, this would be a peace that one side would be forced to accept.
Throughout history, there have been many examples of asymmetrical peace agreements that had lasting, bitter consequences. One notable case is the Treaty of Versailles, imposed by the Allied Powers on the Central Powers after World War I. Germany was excluded from the negotiations and had little choice but to accept the terms, terms which severely weakened its economy and created widespread hardship for its people. The resultant resentment in German society towards this imposed peace presented a path for extremist nationalism to flourish & contributed to the conditions that led to World War II. Similarly, in the Middle East, the Sykes Picot agreement, followed by the Peel Commission, and the United Nations Partition Plan divided the post-Ottoman region of Syria and Palestine without the proper consent of the Arabs affected, leading to its rejection by Arab leaders and contributing to the subsequent Israeli-Arab conflict. Perhaps the most notorious example of a diplomatic deal struck without consulting the state involved was the “Munich Agreement,” the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by the Western powers and Nazi Germany in 1938, and arrangement intended to avert war in Europe that failed miserably.
Ironically, one example of a successfully negotiated peace is the Velvet Divorce, the peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1992. Unlike imposed settlements that breed resentment and future conflict, the Czech and Slovak leadership mutually agreed to separate, ensuring a smooth and cooperative transition. There were no forced concessions, and both parties came to legal, economic, and political arrangements that allowed them to part ways amicably.
Any peace process that excludes those directly involved, especially the victims of conflict, together with their perspectives and insights, is a set-up for failure. This approach is dangerous, as a failed peace often leads to renewed hostilities, escalating conflicts, worsening humanitarian crises, and eroding trust. As a result, achieving lasting peace and political solutions becomes even more difficult in the future.
The upshot of President Trump going about the peace negations this way, in addition to excluding Ukraine, is the outright appeasement of Putin. Coming to the table is a Russia weakened by the toll of the war. With a record high of 48,670 casualties in December 2024 alone, Russia is severely depleted. With an estimated 1.2k-1.3k troops lost daily, its monthly recruitment rates are barely able to keep up. This is further demonstrated by its reliance on North Korea for foreign troop support. Furthermore, the Russian economy has been strained since the beginning of the war. With inflation reaching approximately 20%, and a 57% total reduction in their sovereign wealth fund since 2022, we are seeing an extremely vulnerable Russia coming to the peace negotiations. One would expect that these weaknesses would be utilized as leverage during the negotiations. Instead, Trump claims that it is Zelensky who has “no cards” on the table.
Since discussions of peace have begun, Putin has been given a lifeline, as diplomatic ties in the West continue to face the weight of Trump’s counterproductive diplomatic methods. Putting a pause on military aid to Ukraine, the timing of which circumstantially suggests it has something to do with the disagreement in the Oval Office, is vindictive, and puts the lives of many Ukrainians at risk.
If the result that comes out of these negotiations appeases Putin, the world will behold a repetition of the failed diplomatic strategy that contributed to the outbreak of World War II. Trump has repeatedly promised voters that he will end the war in Ukraine quickly, making it a key campaign pledge. When President Joseph Biden authorized Ukraine to use long-range ATACMS missiles, Trump and many in his camp feared this could escalate into World War III. Their concerns grew when Putin responded by threatening to adjust Russia’s nuclear policy, theoretically allowing the use of nuclear weapons against non-NATO countries supported by NATO allies. Taken together, these factors suggest Trump is looking to rush peace talks, with little concern for the terms of the “peace,” as long as the fighting formally ends. However, rushing such a complex and crucial process has the potential to brew disaster going forward.
If a secure and lasting peace between Moscow and Kyiv is negotiated, not won on the battlefield, there must be mechanisms in place to ensure that Russia cannot wage war against Ukraine again. This can come about by putting in place strong security guarantees for Ukraine and accountability/justice systems to ensure that the war crimes Russia committed during its unprovoked invasion are redressed. Furthermore, due to Putin’s known tendency to violate bilateral/multilateral agreements, such as the Minsk Agreements, any peace agreement hammered out must outline practical consequences for any violation of it, along with measures to ensure that they can be successfully implemented. Anything less than this is a fool’s errand.
Photo: Munich Agreement (1938) National Digital Archives, CC BY-SA 4.0https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Munich_Agreement_%28M%C3%BCnchener_Abkommen%29_1938-09-30_Neville_Chamberlaine_showing_the_Anlo-German_declaration_%28%22Peace_for_our_time%22%29._Heston_Aerodrome,_west_of_London,_England._Narodowe_Archiwum_Cyfrowe_3_1_0_5_268_3_1_111334_No_known_cop.jpg
Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed in articles are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the NATO Association of Canada.
