Washington, D.C – As discussions around a Ukraine-Russia peace deal intensify, the stakes have never been higher. With the United States having poured an estimated $350 billion into Ukraine’s defense, and nearly $200 billion of it under President Biden in the last four years, it is staggering to hear that Ukraine claims to have received only $86 billion. This discrepancy raises profound questions about transparency and accountability in the disbursement of these funds. Perhaps, as some speculate, only Elon Musk and his DOGE team might be the ones with the means to unravel the mystery.
However, as crucial as financial accountability is, the more pressing matter remains the structure and guarantees of any peace agreement. Ukrainian partners must recognize that signing a deal without robust security guarantees is a recipe for future escalation. America and its allies cannot afford to craft an agreement riddled with loopholes that allow hostilities to reignite in a few years, forcing another wave of financial and military support. The lessons of history are clear: a peace deal without strong deterrence is not peace—it is a pause before the next conflict.
Putin’s Track Record: A Cautionary Tale
Vladimir Putin has repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot be trusted. He has a history of violating ceasefires and agreements with Ukraine, often using diplomatic pauses to regroup and escalate his aggression later. Here are a few glaring examples:
Budapest Memorandum (1994): Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal—the third-largest in the world—under the assurance that its territorial integrity would be respected. Less than two decades later, Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, shattering those guarantees.
Minsk Agreements (2014-2015): Negotiated to establish a ceasefire and diplomatic resolution in the Donbas region, these agreements were continuously violated by Russia, leading to years of frozen conflict.
Black Sea Grain Deal (2022-2023): A deal brokered to ensure food security was abandoned by Moscow when it no longer served its interests, illustrating how Russia weaponizes negotiations for strategic advantage.
Given this track record, why should anyone believe that a new peace deal will be respected unless it is backed by force? Putin’s strategic playbook has not changed: negotiate when under pressure, regroup, and strike again when conditions are favorable.
Trump’s Influence and the Four-Year Window
The timing of these peace talks is no coincidence. With President Trump back in the White House, Putin has every reason to seek a deal now. He knows that Trump is in office only for four years. He knows that Trump is unpredictable, strong-willed, and not easily manipulated—unlike the Biden administration, which has been consistently outmaneuvered by Moscow.
But herein lies the real danger: What if Putin is simply playing for time? He may very well agree to a deal now, only to bide his time and wait for Trump’s departure in four years before launching another full-scale invasion. This is why Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy is right to demand more than just a diplomatic handshake. He knows the pain and suffering of his people, and he understands that peace must be backed by credible security commitments, not just words on paper.
The Role of European Security Forces
Europe has already signaled its willingness to take a more active role in Ukraine’s long-term security. The recent pledges in London by European leaders to deploy security forces are a step in the right direction. While Trump may not want American boots on the ground, the United States can and must provide Europe with the necessary military hardware and logistical support to ensure a lasting peace.
Putin will only be deterred if he sees a clear and irreversible commitment to Ukraine’s defense. This means permanent security structures, long-term military aid, and a credible force on the ground. If the West fails to recognize this, it risks entering into an agreement that is nothing more than the “Peace of Saladin.”
The “Peace of Saladin” was a temporary truce negotiated between the Muslim leader Saladin and the Christian Crusaders during the 12th century. Saladin, after achieving key victories, engaged in diplomacy to consolidate his gains and weaken his enemies. The peace he agreed to was strategic—it was not meant to last but to serve as a means to strengthen his position before resuming the conflict under more favorable conditions.
This is the exact trap that Ukraine and its allies must avoid. If Putin is merely seeking a diplomatic ceasefire to replenish his forces and prepare for future conquest, (maybe after Trump is gone), then this “peace” will be no peace at all.
Ukraine and its allies must insist on a peace agreement that includes ironclad security commitments. Anything less is not a peace deal—it is a setup for another devastating war down the road. The United States and Europe must ensure that any agreement is backed by material commitments on the ground that will outlast any single presidential term.
To sign a deal without security guarantees would be to invite history to repeat itself. The question is: Will the West learn from the past, or will it once again fall into the illusion of peace without power?
