Timothy Ash

Going thru the points:

1. First things first, it’s hard to trust a document that starts by talking about affirming Ukrainian sovereignty but then goes on to detail numerous points which undermine that very sovereignty. It appears as something of an oxymoron.

2. Second, how can a non aggression agreement mean anything when Russia has been the aggressor and has invaded Ukraine? What does “all ambiguities over the last 30 years will be considered settled” mean exactly? Where is the detail?

3. Weird term “it is expected” that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries, but NATO countries lose their own sovereignty by not being able to decide their alliances in the future. Why not Russia agrees never AGAIN to invade neighbouring countries? “Expected” implies some kind of optionality.

4. Fair enough but this somehow implies that the U.S. is above all this and seperate from European NATO. It kind of again undermines the perception of the US security backstop for Europe.

5. What are these specific security guarantees? Ukraine is expected to give up territory up front, but where is the hard commitment from the US, or NATO to intervene to defend Ukraine if this deal is breached. That is the kind of security guarantee required. But later it says no NATO membership for Ukraine, so that suggests actually NATO does not want to go to war for Ukraine, which then shows that any security guarantee as above is not worth the paper it is writtten on, a La the Budapest memorandum.

6. Why are troop limitations imposed only on Ukraine? Why does Russia need millions of troops under arms, is this not a real and continuing threat to Europe? How about limitations on Russian troop deployment on its Western flank? And if Ukraine is being limited in terms of the number of troops how about some hard commitments in terms of making the 600,000 highly effective with an agreement to supply top notch Western military to Ukraine kit to ensure its own defence?

7. By agreeing to enshrine no NATO in its constitution does this not go against point 1, this undermines its own soverienty. And see point 6 above. What is the ultimate security assurance for Ukraine then? No NATO, but what?

8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine, but then who is going to police this deal? What about the coalition of the willing? Who will be the peacekeepers to implement a difficult deal? Look at the failures of the UNIFIL in Lebanon.

9. NATO fighter jets will be stationed in Poland, but so what? What will they do? Will they police a no fly zone for Russia in Ukraine?

10. What is the U.S. guarantee, it is not specified? But whatever it is, the US is being paid for it! On what planet is Ukraine going to invade Russia? It says if Russia invades Ukraine then there will be a decisive coordinated military response and sanctions will be lifted, but what if Russia attacks Ukraine though missile strikes? How is invasion defined? And what exactly will be the decisive military response? Can Ukraine rely on that security guarantee after Budapest? Later it says Ukraine cannot hit Russia with long range missiles, but where is the asymmetry here? What if Russia does the same? What happens if Russia launches hybrid warfare against Ukraine as it has been doing for the full duration of the Putin presidency? Can Russia continue to act to destabilise Ukraine with no sanction?

11. Ukraine is deemed eligible for EU membership but by later raising doubts about the long term status of Kherson and Zaporizhiya, surely with a territorial dispute thus festering still the EU will surely stall membership. There is no clear agreement on EU membership here, actually it weakens and undermines the reality of that.

12. Fine, but show me, or Ukraine, the money. Ukraine has suffered $1 trillion plus in damages, who will pay for that? No mention of war reparations.

13. Big wins for Russia, and the U.S. is again being paid for imposing the peace on Ukraine. It is like the US is now the agent of Russia and is being paid a commission. How can Europe ever really trust Russia again? Why would Europe go back to increasing its economic reliance and dependency on and vulnerability to Russia?

14. So Ukraine only gets to keep $100 bn of immobilised Russian assets, and is not really able to use them freely, as they will be part managed by the US, which will again take a commission kind of like blood money. Russia, the aggressor gets the rest of the money back and again the U.S. gets to profit.

15. Where will Ukraine, or Europe fit, in this joint Russia - US working group on security to ensure compliance with the agreement? What will the US do if Russia is not compliant?

16. It is meaningless for Russia to enshrine a policy of non aggression towards Ukraine and Europe in its constitution given that it is an authoritarian state - the constitution can be changed at will. Russia prior guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty in the Budapest Memorandum but then invaded Ukraine. Only hard security guarantees really count now for Ukraine.

17. START1?

18. See the Budapest memorandum, what good did that do for Ukraine?

19. Let see.

20. Hard to disagree with this, but will Russia really do this? Who is going to police this?

21. So Ukraine has to withdraw from Donetsk and Luhansk, but what does it get in exchange? How is this process going to be managed?

The language on de jure but de facto is unclear. It talks of de facto Russia keeping the territory it occupies but then later goes on about the international community recognising the demilitarised zone as Russian, on what basis? De jure or de facto?

What is the process from going from de facto to de jure? Is there some further talks envisaged?

22. Fair enough.

23. Fair enough.

24. “A family reunification programme will be implemented” is code for the return of children?? What about orphans who have been taken by russia? Or those who have legal guardians in Ukraine but not “parents” technically? Plus, what about those under occupation?

25. It will be hard for Ukraine to hold elections in 100 days? What about lifting martial law, this will undermine Ukraine’s security for the election period, and who will guarantee Ukraine’s security for this process? Who will vote? People in occupied areas too? How can the fairness of elections in these areas be assured?

My sense here is that peace agreement is so detrimental to Ukraine that it will unleash social and political instability in Ukraine which will be hard to manage but to the advantage of Russia - which is exactly why Putin is trying to force it down the throat of Ukraine. Putin will use instability in Ukraine as an opportunity to invade and intervene again as we know he wants control over the whole of Ukraine.

26. Amnesty for war crimes? And Ukraine gives up its right to reparations? So who is going to pay for the $1 trillion plus loss to Ukraine? Who pays for Ukrainian reconstruction. Basically here Russia sets the precedent that invasion, and war crimes pay. It gets to keep all the territory it occupies and pays no price. It just returns to its global status quo before the annexation of Crimea, sanctions are lifted as before, and it pays no price.

27. The agreement is guaranteed by the Peace Council headed by Trump, but what after Trump? Is this guaranteed by Trump or the U.S? What does guaranteed mean? If Russia breaks this deal and invades again what will the US do?

28. Who will monitor all this? These things are technically very difficult, look at Lebanon now in terms of monitoring the Hezbollah withdrawal.

Net net, I think this agreement will be very hard for Zelensky to accept. Russia gets everything it wants and Ukraine gets not very much. If Zelensky accepts this I anticipate huge political, social and economic instability in Ukraine, a risk of a failed Ukrainian state and increased and continued security risks to Europe. This agreement undermines Ukrainian and European security it does not assure it, unless Trump says openly if Russia breaks this agreement the U.S. will come in to defend Ukraine. Will Trump make that commitment? I doubt it.