US president Donald Trump has stated his intention to bring peace to Ukraine countless times. Yet, as Washington’s negotiations with both Kyiv and Moscow continue, Trump should remember that whatever deal is reached won’t simply be the end of the matter. A bad peace could end up laying the groundwork for future conflict, either with Russia or within Ukraine itself.
As it stands, Trump seems to favour something close to a forced Ukrainian capitulation. This wouldn’t bring stability. In fact, it could create a breeding ground for future chaos, likely causing mass migration, a surge in illegal weapons and geopolitical aftershocks of seismic proportions.
The worst-case scenario? A Russian-fuelled civil war in Ukraine. I witnessed this firsthand in the Donbas in 2014. I dread its spread across the country and potentially beyond.
The Korean Armistice of 1953 provides a warning from history. It ended the large-scale fighting of the Korean War between the Communist-backed North and the US-backed South, yet it failed to bring lasting peace. The Korean Peninsula has been left in a state of tension for decades. A forced settlement in Ukraine could lead to a similar outcome, only much worse in some key respects.
Trump might think that Russian president Vladimir Putin is being ‘more generous than he has to be’ in negotiations. But Putin is still the one who kicked off the war and keeps it going in the most brutal ways possible. In the 11 years since seizing Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine, he has never backed down. Sanctions, international isolation and economic pressure have all come to nothing.
European leaders have long buried their heads in the sand, and passed responsibility for Ukraine’s security on to the US. But Trump’s unpredictable actions have compelled them to finally start taking responsibility for their own nations’ security and that of Ukraine, too.
Nearly all of Europe’s leaders, including Britain’s Keir Starmer, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s incoming new government, now recognise that what happens to Ukraine will directly affect their nations. So when Trump labelled Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky a ‘dictator’, they responded unequivocally, saying almost as one that ‘Ukraine is a democracy’ while affirming their commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Following Zelensky’s humiliation in Washington at the hands of Trump and his vice-president, JD Vance, Britain embraced the Ukrainian leader. King Charles personally welcomed him at Sandringham, underscoring the UK’s unwavering support. Days later, in Brussels, 26 European leaders signed a declaration affirming their commitment to Ukraine’s independence and urging increased defence spending across the EU. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen pledged to turn Ukraine into a ‘steel porcupine’ in the face of Russian aggression.
It looked as if Europe had managed to supplant America as Ukraine’s foremost military ally. Yet, on his return to Kyiv, Zelensky unexpectedly pledged to ‘make things right’ with Trump and pursue negotiations. This came after Washington announced a pause in military aid, citing Ukraine’s reluctance to come to the table. Now Ukraine has agreed to a US ceasefire proposal, and the US has reinstated its military support.
Thus, von der Leyen’s vision of reinforcing Ukraine’s resistance to Russia has come to nothing. Ukraine, after so much sacrifice, is clearly growing war weary. And its fatigue is fostering a willingness to go along with Trump’s ‘peace’ plan.
This could have serious repercussions for Ukraine’s neighbours. The head of German intelligence agency BND, Bruno Kahl, has said that if the war in Ukraine ends before 2030, it would ‘allow the Russians to redirect their energy where they want it most – against Europe’. This is overstating it. A direct Russian invasion of Europe remains unlikely, certainly in the short term. But a truce between Moscow and Kyiv could trigger a different kind of crisis.
Polish president Andrzej Duda has expressed concerns that the conclusion of the war may unleash a wave of organised crime across Europe, fuelled by the proliferation of weapons and returning Ukrainian soldiers struggling to reintegrate. His concerns are well founded.
Ukraine’s military, now 980,000 strong, includes many battle-hardened veterans – some physically scarred, others likely grappling with deep psychological wounds. They will return to civilian life in a country ravaged by bombs and economically ruined. Reintegration will be an immense challenge.
Illegal firearms are another pressing issue. The Small Arms Survey estimated that there were 3.6million unregistered weapons in Ukraine as of 2017 – a number that has certainly grown. The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organised Crime has warned of Ukraine becoming a hub for arms trafficking, a pattern seen in the postwar Balkans and other conflict zones.
A peace deal perceived as a capitulation could also deepen national demoralisation. Public disillusionment with the authorities may surge and extremist factions could take advantage, pushing Ukraine towards internal unrest.
A ‘peace’ might not therefore be an end to war, but a prelude to another, more insidious conflict – one fought from within. Putin knows this. What he fails to conquer by force, he may hope to unravel through internal decay.
If Ukraine spirals into chaos, Europe will face a crisis beyond its control. A new refugee wave, the unchecked spread of illegal arms, the rise of criminal syndicates and growing instability could force the EU to shift its focus from turning Ukraine into a steel porcupine to shielding itself behind a new Iron Curtain.
So much now rests on the terms of any future peace. A bad deal for Ukraine could have severe ramifications for all of Europe.
Sergey Maidukov is a Ukrainian writer. He is the author of Life on the Run: One Family’s Search for Peace in War-torn Ukraine.
