Trump's Inept Diplomacy: How a "Peace Plan" Lays the Groundwork for a New War in Ukraine
05.02.2026When the US president simultaneously talks about "quick peace" and puts pressure on the victim of aggression, not the aggressor, this is no longer diplomacy, but a dangerous experiment. The scheme, according to which Kyiv is persuaded to make concessions and Putin is left with room for revenge, almost always ends not with peace, but with a break between wars.
7 key SEO queries by topic
SEO keywords: Trump's inept diplomacy, a new war in Ukraine, Trump's peace plan for Ukraine, criticism of The Telegraph, concessions in Donbas, risk of new Russian aggression, Trump's pressure on Zelensky to give up part of Donbas, Putin's position and demands regarding Donbas in the negotiations, why Trump's "peace" initiatives are dangerous for Ukraine, the threat of a new Russian invasion after a false peace
The gist of The Telegraph article: what Blair is warning about
The Telegraph's chief foreign policy columnist David Blair warns: Donald Trump's current approach to negotiations on Ukraine may not stop the war, but only preserve it or create the conditions for the next, even more destructive aggression1 4 8 According to the author, Trump is sending his closest mediator — developer Steve Witkoff — to peace talks in Abu Dhabi with the sole purpose of reaching “some kind of deal,” regardless of its content and long-term consequences.1 4 In this logic, he actually acts as a “neutral arbitrator” between the aggressor and the victim, avoiding a clear definition of who is to blame for the war and who should retreat.1 4 .
According to Blair, such "neutrality" actually means shifting the entire weight of pressure from the US from Vladimir Putin to Volodymyr Zelenskyy.1 4 8 . Washington, under Trump, instead of demanding that the Kremlin abandon its territorial claims, is instead persuading Kyiv to agree to a compromise that includes the actual relinquishment of part of the occupied territories of the Donetsk region.1 6 This approach, the author emphasizes, lays the groundwork for a delayed action: Russia gets a respite legitimized by the agreement, and Ukraine gets weakened security guarantees and a new front of risks for the future.
What Putin demands: Donbas as a trophy "at the table"
According to The Telegraph and its reprints in European media, Putin is entering the negotiations with a tough demand: to formalize Russia's control over the territories it was unable to fully capture on the battlefield, primarily the rest of Donetsk Oblast.1 4 8 Blair writes that it is about 200 thousand civilians who want to "deliver into the hands of the enemy" through a political agreement, not direct occupation.4 8 These are the territories where Ukraine held the front line despite everything, and it is these that the Kremlin now wants to receive as a "contractual prize" within the framework of the peace plan.
According to the columnist, a real mediator should insist on something else: demand that the Kremlin abandon its territorial claims, strengthen sanctions and military support for Ukraine until Moscow understands the futility of further war.1 4 Instead, Trump, positioning himself as a “man who brings peace,” is trying to drive Kyiv into the framework of concessions, and Putin into the comfortable role of a party that does not fundamentally change anything, but gets a chance to fix what has been achieved.1 6 .
What Trump's "peace plan" looks like, according to media reports
Although the key parameters of Trump's plan have not been officially released, a number of Western publications, including the BBC, The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The Telegraph itself, have described its common features.2 5 7 In different variations we are talking about:
- the transfer of all or most of the Donetsk region to Russia, sometimes together with the rest of Donbas2 5 ;
- limitations on the number and armament of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the actual “demilitarized” position of the state5 ;
- a ban on the deployment of foreign troops or bases on the territory of Ukraine — even in the format of EU and NATO missions5 ;
- a certain format of security guarantees from the US and European countries, but with unclear mechanisms for responding to new aggression1 4 .
An important detail that European analysts point out: these options almost always lack a key requirement — the withdrawal of Russian troops and Moscow's complete abandonment of plans to control Ukrainian territory by force.2 5 Instead, the logic of “freezing” the contact line with the legalization of the occupation and restrictions on Ukraine’s future in Europe’s security architecture dominates.
Why Trump's "neutrality" works for Putin
Blair emphasizes: the biggest problem is that Trump chooses the role of an allegedly "honest broker" who does not take anyone's side, but actually removes pressure from Putin and transfers it to Zelensky.1 4 8 . The US President, according to Western sources, does not question the legitimacy of Russian claims, but forces the Ukrainian side to "be more flexible" and agree to "painful compromises."5 7 As a result, the aggressor receives a signal: his demands are not a “red line” for Washington, but a subject of bargaining.
The alternative proposed by The Telegraph would look different: the US, together with the EU, would increase sanctions pressure, in particular by blocking Russian oil and gas exports, and increase military support for Ukraine, including the supply of long-range missiles such as Tomahawks to strike the Russian energy sector.1 6 In such a configuration, it is Putin who finds himself forced to abandon his goals, not the other way around. Instead, Trump's current course, in the author's assessment, rather convinces the Kremlin that time is on its side.
The risks of a “false peace”: why a new war is only a matter of time
Blair's key thesis sounds harsh: Trump's inept diplomacy could either prolong the current war or create a false peace that will sow the seeds of the next one.1 4 8 In the first scenario, Putin, not feeling increased pressure, simply refuses any concessions and continues the war, while waiting for Ukraine and the West to be exhausted.1 In the second, Kyiv, under strong political pressure, agrees to give up part of Donbas in exchange for vague security guarantees that do not contain clear mechanisms for responding to new aggression.4 5 .
The observer considers this second scenario to be the most dangerous. Having received a respite and a de facto recognized “zone of control” in Donbas, the Kremlin will use the time to rearm, mobilize, and adapt the economy to sanctions.5 7 In a few years — against the backdrop of changing political cycles in the US, the EU, and Ukraine itself — Russia may again go on the offensive, from new positions, and any “guarantees” will turn out to be paper declarations that cannot be quickly translated into military support.5 .
Lessons from history: why “peace for land” rarely works
European analysts, commenting on Trump's plan, often draw parallels with 20th-century history — primarily with Hitler's appeasement policy before World War II.2 5 . The logic of “giving the aggressor part of what he wants so that he stops” has repeatedly ended in new demands and a new war. In the case of Ukraine, this logic is doubly dangerous: it is not only about specific territories, but also about the country’s right to sovereignly choose a security alliance and a development model.
Moreover, Ukraine’s own experience shows that “frozen” conflicts rarely remain truly frozen. The Minsk agreements of 2014–2015 were not a finale, but a pause between phases of the war, which Russia used to prepare for a full-scale invasion.2 5 That is why Ukrainian society is extremely wary of any plans that involve territorial concessions in exchange for abstract formulas of "guarantees."
Ukrainian and European reactions to Trump's "peaceful" initiatives
Ukrainian politicians and civil society have repeatedly signaled that the proposed parameters of Trump's peace plan are unacceptable, as they imply capitulation under the guise of compromise.5 7 . Deputies, expert communities, and volunteer initiatives have publicly stated that the transfer of Donbas or other territories to Russia in the form of “peace” will not be supported by either parliament or society, and an attempt to impose such a scenario will create an internal political crisis against the backdrop of war.7 President Volodymyr Zelensky has also repeatedly emphasized that any decision regarding the territories can only be made by the Ukrainian people, in particular by referendum, but holding a referendum in conditions of active hostilities and occupation is unrealistic.3 6 .
European leaders and analysts are skeptical of Trump's plans. In comments to the BBC, The Guardian, and The Washington Post, experts have called such initiatives "one-sided," "dictated by Moscow's interests," and "a threat to turn Russia into a dominant predator in Europe."2 5 7 . A key concern: If the US were to promote a model of peace at the expense of Ukraine, it would undermine confidence in American security guarantees across Europe — from the Baltics to the Balkans.
What does this mean for Ukraine right now?
For Ukraine, the main risk in the current configuration is not only in the specific formulations about Donbas, but in the very logic of the negotiations, where they are trying to put Ukraine in the position of "the weaker party that must pay for peace."5 7 In this logic, every new shelling, every wave of missile and drone attacks on energy and cities becomes not a reason to increase pressure on the Kremlin, but an argument in favor of "the fastest peace at any cost."
This creates a dangerous political backdrop: allies, weary of war, may gradually be inclined to support a “bad peace” if Washington bets on it.2 6 For Kyiv, this means the need to work even more actively with European capitals, congressmen, and Western public opinion, explaining a simple thing: an agreement that rewards the aggressor does not end the war — it changes its calendar and geography.
Conclusion: Why “inept diplomacy” is more dangerous than open conflict
David Blair concludes his text with a sentence that should be read as a warning to all participants in the game: Trump's inept diplomacy could either perpetuate the current war or lead to a false peace that sows the seeds of the next one.1 4 8 Instead of using the unique potential of the United States to pressure the aggressor — sanctions, control of oil markets, military aid to Ukraine — the White House, in his assessment, is wasting political capital on forcing the victim of war to make concessions.
For Ukraine and Europe, the story of Trump's "peace initiatives" is a reminder: sometimes the most dangerous is not an outright enemy, but an ally who believes that the issue of war and peace can be resolved as another business deal. That is why today's discussions about the "Trump plan" should be viewed not only as a diplomatic intrigue, but as a real factor in the long-term security - or its undermining - for all of Europe.
Sources
- The Telegraph: David Blair's column on the risks of Donald Trump's peaceful approach to the war in Ukraine and the threat of "sowing the seeds" of a new war.
- BBC News: materials on the concerns of European allies regarding the possible conditions of Trump's "peace plan" and the idea of handing over Donbas to Russia.
- BBC, government briefings: reports on proposals for a referendum in Ukraine and a 60-day pause for its holding, and Russia's position on the ceasefire.
- TSN, Gordonua, other Ukrainian media: reprints and translations of The Telegraph article in Russian and Ukrainian, quotes about Trump's "inept diplomacy."
- The Guardian, The Washington Post: analysis of how Trump's peace initiatives reflect the Kremlin's interests and risk legitimizing the occupied territories.
- BBC, CNN: reports on negotiations involving Trump, Zelensky, and Putin, mentions of Russia's demands regarding Donbas and the rejection of international troops in Ukraine.
- European media and Ukrainian sources: assessments of Ukrainian parliamentarians, experts and civil society regarding the unacceptability of plans with territorial concessions.
- Censor.net, UNIAN: reviews of the Ukrainian media's reaction to The Telegraph article and warnings about the risk of a new war if Trump's "peace plan" is implemented.
- Analytical materials on the experience of the Minsk agreements and "frozen" conflicts, which turned into stages before full-scale aggression by the Russian Federation.
