
The Terrifying Prospect of Trump's Peace Plan for Ukraine
Days after threatening to abandon peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, the Trump administration last week produced the outlines of a proposal to end the war between the two countries. The proposal, which is being viewed as President Trump's 'final offer,' completely blindsided Ukraine and America's European allies, and for good reason: It heavily favors the aggressor. Ukraine has already rejected it.
In addition to reportedly freezing the current territorial lines, prohibiting Ukraine from joining NATO, and lifting sanctions on Russia that have been in place since 2014 when it annexed the Crimean Peninsula, the proposal offers Moscow a diplomatic gift that would set an extremely dangerous precedent: formal recognition of its control over Crimea.
Acceding to Russian control of Ukraine would break with an over-eight-decade, bipartisan tradition of opposing the changing of international borders by force. This policy was first articulated in 1940, after the Soviet Union annexed the three Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
The acting secretary of state, Sumner Welles, issued a statement that would come to have a profound impact on American foreign policy and international relations. 'The people of the United States are opposed to predatory activities no matter whether they are carried on by the use of force or by the threat of force,' Welles said. 'Unless the doctrine in which these principles are inherent once again governs the relations between nations, the rule of reason, of justice and of law — in other words, the basis of modern civilization itself — cannot be preserved.' More than 50 countries followed America's lead in refusing to recognize the puppet governments installed by Moscow in the three annexed countries.
The United States maintained its nonrecognition policy after allying itself with the Soviet Union in June 1941. Later that year, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill of Britain produced the Atlantic Charter, envisioning a postwar world order governed along liberal principles like self-determination, democracy and free trade. The two nations also expressed their 'desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned.' Over the next 50 years, the United States stayed true to the letter and the spirit of the Welles Declaration, acknowledging the exiled governments of the Baltic States as the legal sovereigns of the territories they did not actually control.
Along those lines, offering de facto recognition of Russia's control over Crimea, as the Trump plan proposes with regard to Ukraine's eastern regions, would be a reasonable concession. Russian troops and military matériel are facts on the ground that cannot be wished away. But the U.S. providing formal recognition of the Crimean annexation would overturn the policy of every American president since Roosevelt, including Mr. Trump.
In 2018, during his first administration, secretary of state Mike Pompeo reiterated the basic tenet that the United States would not legitimize territorial aggrandizement by recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. 'As we did in the Welles Declaration in 1940, the United States reaffirms as policy its refusal to recognize the Kremlin's claim of sovereignty over territory seized by force in contravention of international law.' Nothing that has occurred over the past nearly 7 years justifies a repudiation of this commitment to principle and tradition.
Alas, longstanding principles and traditions have never had much influence on Mr. Trump's decision making. The most charitable explanation for this impetuous plan is that it's a product of his impatience with diplomacy and desire to win a Nobel Peace Prize. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly said that he would end the war within 24 hours of being inaugurated. When that didn't happen, he tasked an envoy, the retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, with solving the conflict within 100 days.
The likelier motive for Mr. Trump's proposed acquiescence to Russian colonialism is that it's a genuine reflection of his worldview, namely, the principle that might makes right. Mr. Trump either doesn't know or doesn't care that this conflict began 11 years ago when Russia launched an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. That this act was gravely immoral, never mind illegal, does not factor into Mr. Trump's geopolitical calculus.
Threats to run for a third term notwithstanding, Mr. Trump is a lame-duck president, which makes him more prone to take rash actions on the international stage. As his own threats to take over Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal suggest, he is sympathetic to the idea of big countries taking over smaller ones, and he is behaving far more erratically in the realm of foreign affairs than he did in his first term. That he might become the first American president to confer legitimacy on the annexation of another country's territory is a real, and terrifying, possibility.
The war in Ukraine is not, as another British prime minister once said about a European territorial dispute that quickly escalated into the most destructive conflict the world has ever seen, just a 'quarrel in a faraway country, between people of whom we know nothing.' Assenting to Russia's annexation of Crimea would have global consequences.
Other dictatorships, having witnessed the world's leading democracy endorse such a flagrant violation of the most basic principle governing the relationship among sovereign states, would feel emboldened to do the same. 'Giving Russia de jure recognition of occupied territories would send the world the signal: Go ahead, invade a sovereign country, change its borders; it's all good,' the former Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves told me. If the United States were to recognize Crimea as Russia it would join the august company of Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela.
Those who support bestowing an imprimatur of legality upon Russia's annexation of Crimea contend that, like the territories Russia controls in its other frozen conflicts, the land Ukraine has lost is never coming back. The same, however, was said about the Baltic States. For most of the Cold War, the prospect of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania regaining their independence seemed remote, if not fantastic. In 1975, The Times reported that, while American officials doubted that 'formal recognition' of the Soviet occupations would 'come soon,' they believed it was 'inevitable.'
Yet the United States and its allies persisted in refusing to accept the subjugation of the Baltic States, and when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, they were liberated. Today, they are members of the European Union and NATO with consolidated democracies, market economies and increasingly confident places on the world stage.
After 11 years of grinding conflict, it's entirely understandable that Mr. Trump wants to end this war. But he must not mistake a temporary cessation of hostilities — which is all that his proposal would achieve — with a just and lasting peace. Unless Ukraine is provided with an explicit security guarantee (which in all likelihood means NATO membership), Russia will just bide its time until the moment is opportune for it to invade again.
Whether Mr. Trump is in or out of office when this happens, it will destroy his legacy.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
17 minutes ago
- Fox News
ICE arrests 'worst of the worst' illegal aliens in Los Angeles as rioters torch city and more top headlines
1. ICE arrests 'worst of the worst' illegal aliens in Los Angeles 2. Newsom taunts Trump's border czar Tom Homan 'come and get me' 3. Dem rep's vulgar demand to ICE officers leads to calls to expel her from Congress 'NEVER SEEN HER' – AOC, progressives ripped for ignoring 'Red Light district' as prostitution, filthy streets return. Continue reading … COURTHOUSE CRACKDOWN – Trump's ICE launches bold courthouse migrant arrest strategy to fast-track deportations. Continue reading … BILLIONAIRE BRAWL – Trump admin sets the record straight on reports of Musk 'body-checking' Treasury Secretary. Continue reading … 'PROUD' AMERICAN – Tennis star makes controversial Trump comment after becoming French Open champion. Continue reading … KREMLIN AT SEA – Russian 'ghost ships' spark Baltic Sea showdown as US Navy flexes military muscle. Continue reading … -- CAGE-SIDE POLITICS – Cheers, boos, and bold takes: UFC fans judge Trump before the cage door closes. Continue reading … BIG BILL, BIG RIFT – Senator fires back at Trump's pressure campaign: 'It'll completely backfire on him.' Continue reading … CHECK UP – Obama White House doctor spells out how Biden's physician failed. Continue reading … TRUMP'S RED LINE – Trump threatens 'consequences' if Elon Musk funds Democratic candidates. Continue reading … IT'S 'COMPLICATED' – Biden book authors pressed on why the media failed in covering cognitive decline scandal. Continue reading … 'WORLD-CLASS HATER' – ABC News' Terry Moran's history of attacking Trump dates back to first term in 2017. Continue reading … 'VERY DAMAGING' – '60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley warns against CBS settlement with Trump. Continue reading … TRUTH REVEALED – Famed filmmaker exposes Democratic Party lies after dramatic political shift. Continue reading … SIMON HANKINSON – The real implications of the Chinese fungus smuggling. Continue reading … ROBERT MAGINNIS – Five terrifying flashpoints that could ignite global war. Continue reading … -- THE NEW PALM BEACH? – Coastal town is drawing luxury homebuyers with big pockets. Continue reading … NUTRIENT CHECK – Do you need a magnesium supplement? Experts share symptoms and tips. Continue reading … AMERICAN CULTURE QUIZ – Test yourself on festival firsts and summery snacks. Take the quiz here … MILE-HIGH MAYHEM – Passengers share 'weirdest' things seen on planes. Continue reading … 'TRAVELING THE WORLD' – Woman's message in bottle about deceased mother goes viral. See video … JONATHAN FAHEY – Newsom and Bass are taking the side of the rioters. See video … MARC THIESSEN – Elon Musk has confused who's the president and who's the aide. See video … Tune in to the FOX NEWS RUNDOWN PODCAST for today's in-depth reporting on the news that impacts you. Check it out ... What's it looking like in your neighborhood? Continue reading… Thank you for making us your first choice in the morning! We'll see you in your inbox first thing Tuesday.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Neo-Nazi group ‘actively seeking to grow in US' with planned paramilitary training event
An international neo-Nazi terrorist organization is boldly continuing to build in the US and planning a new paramilitary training event without fear of local authorities or the FBI, which once dismantled it in a nationwide effort. The Base, founded in 2018 by a former Pentagon contractor living in Russia and now suspected of Kremlin-sponsored espionage, once boasted close to 50 stateside members before the bureau made more than a dozen arrests in a years-long counter-terrorism operation. But since the presidential election campaign last year and what many then believed to be a surefire victory for Donald Trump, the Base saw an opportunity in a potential administration uninterested in policing white supremacy and went about ramping up its ranks. Related: Energized neo-Nazis feel their moment has come as Trump changes everything Now, the Base has a presence in Ukraine, performing sabotage operations inside the country against the embattled government, and new and dangerous cells emerging across Europe, and it appears to be growing in the US, where the FBI under the Maga acolyte Kash Patel has signalled it isn't prioritizing investigations of far-right extremism. In its early history, part of what first piqued the interest of authorities was the Base's courting of military veterans who could help drill its foot soldiers in a series of training camps across the US. Eventually implicated in an assassination plot, mass shootings and other actions in Europe, the Base went so far as to have a fortified compound and cell in Michigan, led by a US army dropout. Online evidence from its various accounts, several of which live on Russian servers to avoid censorship on American sites, shows the Base has real plans for a national gathering this summer where members intend to train in paramilitary drills as in years past. 'The Base in [the] USA is preparing for an upcoming national training event,' reads one of its recent posts soliciting crypto donations. 'This one might be our most attended training event in [the] USA in a while. We could really use some financial support to help our members with travel expenses.' The post continued: 'When you donate money to the Base, you're investing in a White Defense Force that's aiming to protect white people from political persecution and physical destruction.' The Base then published a new photo of armed members claiming to be in the midwest, which follows a trend in 2025 of the group bragging about its unafraid American presence. As a sort of taunt to its enemies, on the day of Trump's inauguration the Base released a photo of four members somewhere in Appalachia, in what was the largest number of American members in one photo in over a year. Related: Alleged former members of neo-Nazi group claim its leader is Russian spy 'The upcoming national training event indicates that the group is seeking to grow and is willing to take the risk of advertising it publicly in advance,' said Joshua Fisher-Birch, an analyst of far-right terrorism who has been following the Base's movements for close to a decade. 'The Base appears to be actively seeking to grow in the US.' Fisher-Birch notes that even if the gathering involves 'fewer than 20 people', it is by no means 'low profile' and suggests the group sees momentum is on its side. 'An event entails planning, coordination, travel and face-to-face meetings between different regional groups, indicating that they operate in an environment where they view the potential amount of risk as acceptable,' he said. 'The group has previously stated multiple times that being a member or training with them is a risky endeavor; however, planning a meetup, which they will inevitably use for propaganda purposes, is a different approach than even a year ago, when the group advertised regional activities.' In response to queries about the Base's latest movements, the FBI told the Guardian that it only investigates people who have or are planning to commit a federal crime and pose 'a threat to national security'. 'Our focus is not on membership in particular groups but on criminal activity,' said a spokesperson for the FBI. 'Membership in groups is not illegal in and of itself and is protected by the first amendment.' But in Michigan and in Georgia, members of the Base were charged with their criminal associations to the group. The Trump administration's security posture on the far right is to downplay its significance. Yet experts unanimously agree: it is the top domestic terrorism threat facing the country. Instead, Patel, the FBI's director, has gone about removing agents from pursuing the far right, while one of Trump's first actions in his second term was to provide unconditional pardons, en masse, to all of the January 6 insurrectionists. Fisher-Birch also pointed out that the Base had taken itself more seriously and upped its activities in Ukraine to the tune of calling for the murder of government officials and acts of sabotage – with the clearly stated goal of forming a white ethnostate in the west of the country. Already, the Ukrainian cell has uploaded geolocated videos of some of these attacks, one showing the burning of a military vehicle and what looks like a government electrical box. In a video released on a Russian video-sharing site in mid-May, Rinaldo Nazzaro, the founder and leader of the Base, who is living in St Petersburg, released a video describing the importance of new training videos proving to potential recruits that his group is not just online, but in the real world. 'It's propaganda through actions, not just words,' he said. It isn't clear where the paramilitary training will take place, but Nazzaro is known to have purchased land in the Pacific north-west that he intended to use as a headquarters for the Base and its activities.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump-Musk feud shows what happens when unregulated money floods politics
Elon Musk said, very loudly and very publicly, what is usually the quiet part of the role of money in US politics. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Such ingratitude,' he wrote on his X social media platform amid an ongoing feud with Donald Trump. When rightwing commentator Laura Loomer wrote that Republicans on Capitol Hill had been discussing whom to side with in the inter-party feud, Musk replied with a nod toward the long tail of his influence. 'Oh and some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years … ,' Musk wrote on X. Billionaires in the US often seek to influence politics in big and small ways, throwing their money and influence around to extract what they want from the government. But few are as explicit and influential as Musk has proven in the past year – and it's showing just how transactional and broken US governance has become. The Trump-Musk battle exemplifies the post-Citizens United picture of US politics: the world's richest person paid handsomely to elect his favored candidate, then took a formal, if temporary, role with a new governmental initiative created for him that focused on dismantling parts of the government he didn't like. We're sitting ringside to a fight between the mega-rich president and the far richer Republican donor to see who can cut more services from the poor. As one satirical website put it: 'Aw! These Billionaires Are Fighting Over How Much Money to Steal From Poor People.' Fifteen years ago, the US supreme court ruled that corporations and outside groups could spend as much as they wanted on elections. In that ruling, conservative justice Anthony Kennedy said: 'The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.' In the years since, it's become clear that these infusions of wealth have eroded democracy, with Musk's ostentatious example accelerating an already out-of-control level of money in politics. Musk spent nearly $300m to elect Trump in 2024. It's the billionaire's government now. 'Fifteen years after that decision, we're seeing the full culmination of living under a Citizens United world – where it's not just elections that are for sale, but it's that our entire government, and the apparatus of our government, is up for sale,' Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United, told the Bulwark earlier this year. Musk isn't alone here: in races up and down the ballot, ultra-rich donors are throwing around their cash to get their favored candidates elected. This is the standard state of play for politics in the US now, in both political parties. Bernie Sanders confronted Democrats at their convention last year to say: 'Billionaires in both parties should not be able to buy elections, including primary elections.' Earlier this year, Musk poured big money into a Wisconsin judicial election, but lost to the Democratic candidate. And he's sent small-dollar donations to Republicans who wanted to go after judges who ruled against the Trump administration. The threat of his money, even if it is uneven and has an inconsistent success record, looms large for both political parties. But, by virtue of his unelected role, Musk couldn't do as much as he wanted to stop Trump's signature spending bill – or so it seems so far. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' didn't cut enough spending or favor Musk enough or otherwise meet his litmus test for a budget. And when the administration stopped working for him, he turned on it, blazing out the door in a chaotic fashion. It's a fitting coda to the uneasy alliance between Trump and Musk that started with a warm embrace and front-row status for the ultra-wealthy when Trump took office. The fact that Musk holds such sway over the budget process is in itself corruption. Trump has said Musk knew what was in the bill, the undertone being that the administration sought his approval before the public explosion. Musk embraced a brawling style of political spending that is rare among the uber-wealthy, who tend to let their money speak louder than their public words. One expert in philanthropy previously told the Guardian Musk stood out because of his 'complete eschewal of discretion as a mode of political engagement'. Musk is now rallying his followers on X to reach out to their members of Congress and kill the bill, a quest that could be successful, depending on how Republican lawmakers shake out when they're forced to decide between their ideologue president and a megadonor known for his vindictiveness. In rightwing media, the feud has created a chasm. On Breitbart, one commentator noted how Trump was 'sticking his finger in the eye of his biggest donor and that never happens'. In the American Spectator, one writer opined that Musk did not elect Trump: 'the American people did.' But in the pages of the Washington Examiner, Musk's stance on the bill was praised because Trump's budget plan 'deserves to die'. 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago,' Trump wrote to cap off a series of posts and public comments about Musk. Musk has 'lost his mind', the president said in a TV interview Friday. So far, Republican officials are lining up behind Trump. 'President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads,' JD Vance said. If Musk ultimately loses, he could take his money and run elsewhere. He floated the idea of creating a third political party, a prospect that's been tried many times before but without the wealth infusion and bully pulpit he'd offer to the cause. Democrats, themselves quite reliant on rich donors, will lobby for him to switch sides. The Democratic representative Ro Khanna suggested the party should 'be in a dialogue' with Musk. Although Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley and has called for the left to embrace economic populism, saw intense backlash against his comments from his party, he doubled down. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' he wrote on X. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority.'