Trump's Peace Deal: How a Potential Compromise Threatens Ukraine, Europe & the World

Many foreign media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal recently published the contents of confidential proposals that the Trump administration handed over to the Ukrainian side. These are “options” that, in Washington's view, could be the basis for ending the war. 

These include the recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, Ukraine's refusal to join NATO, and the creation of a neutral zone around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant under international control.

At first glance, this looks like another attempt at a diplomatic “restart” to stop the bloodshed. But in reality, it is an attempt to impose a new geopolitical construct on Ukraine, which carries risks not only for Kyiv but also for the entire post-1945 international security architecture.

Legalization of Border Changes by Force: Crimea as a Precedent

Recognition of the occupation of Crimea – even tacit or partial – fundamentally changes approaches to sovereignty in the twenty-first century. It: 1) undermines the principle of non-recognition of annexations, which has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans since 2014; 2) sets a dangerous precedent for China in relation to Taiwan, for Serbia in relation to Kosovo, for Iran in relation to Arab territories, and even for Turkey in Cyprus and Syria.

In fact, it is a signal: if you are strong enough and ready to wait, the captured can be yours.

Changing the Balance in Europe: NATO Fragmentation and New Autonomies

Ukraine's refusal to join NATO looks like a “compromise” but undermines the very logic of the security system in Europe. This creates several geopolitical waves:

First, the weakening of NATO's “open door” – the alliance no longer guarantees membership even to those who are willing to fight for common values.

Second, a push for European defense autonomy, but without a unified will or tools. France, Poland, and the Baltic states can create a “coalition of the willing,” but this is not an equivalent replacement for NATO.

Thirdly, uncertainty about the United States as a guarantor of stability – if Washington negotiates with Moscow without Brussels' participation, it creates a split in the transatlantic community.

The Construction of a “Neutral Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant”: An International Protectorate or a Hidden Zone of Influence?

The proposed idea of making the ZNPP a “neutral zone” with international control (and in some interpretations, under US supervision) is a completely new approach to conflict resolution in the modern world.

This can look like:

creation of the first “strategic enclave” in the middle of the conflict zone - without belonging to any side;

but also an attempt by the US to gain control over Ukrainian critical infrastructure as a “guarantee of stability” (remember Trump's idea to buy Ukrainian power plants);

for Russia, this is unacceptable, because the ZNPP is an important part of the plan for “energy absorption” of the occupied regions.

This format, even if agreed upon, will not solve the security issue, but will only “freeze” the tension, creating a constant source of risks.

Russia's Position: Partial Victory and a Chance for Revenge

For the Kremlin, this construction is not a capitulation to the West, but a recognition of some of its geopolitical achievements:

Crimea is officially “theirs”;

NATO is not expanding;

part of Donbas is under Russian control or in the gray zone;

Ukraine is not integrated into any defense structure.

Even if Russia cedes part of the newly occupied territories (for example, part of Zaporizhzhia or Kherson regions), although this is not the case, it establishes a “minimum” for future negotiations on the status quo.

This means that the war is not over – it is only temporarily changing its form.

Big Consequences: the Destruction of the Post-war World System

The Trump compromise is the beginning of a new global order in which:

The United States no longer acts as a guarantor of international law;

Europe is unable to ensure its own security;

force decides more than agreements;

Ukraine is the first victim, but not the last.

This is not just a “bad peace” for Ukraine – it is a bad signal for the whole world, where balance, not law, rules.

At the same time, there are some tactical positives for Ukraine: 1) there are no demands for army reduction and elections, which means that Ukraine's internal and military subjectivity is preserved; 2) it is no longer about 5 regions, which creates space for a delayed solution or diplomatic bargaining; 3) NATO is not involved, but individual guarantees from EU countries, especially France, Germany, Poland, and Britain, are possible.

Shaky Compromise as a Breaking Point

Washington's proposals are not an ultimatum, but a window into the future, where there are no longer any illusions about “justice being done.” This is a game of big players who want to close the Ukrainian issue in order to open up other issues, such as Taiwan, Iran, and internal stability.

It is important for Ukraine:

not to accept constructions that legitimize defeat (such as official recognition of the occupation of anything, reduction of the number of troops, etc.);

to maintain diplomatic subjectivity;

to build its own game – with Europe, Asia, the Global South – but without illusions of salvation from Washington.

Peace is not a gift. It is the result of power. Both diplomatic and military. And most importantly – internal.

Ihor Petrenko, founder of the “United Ukraine” Think Tank, Doctor of Political Sciences