The White House deserves credit for revitalizing diplomacy to end the war in Ukraine. However, in its haste for a deal, its proposals have too often looked indistinguishable from a surrender on Russia’s terms. If the US wants to secure a lasting peace, it would need to put forward a more credible offer — and, most importantly, increase the pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to accept.
US negotiators have offered up a ceasefire plan that would leave Russia in de facto control of almost all the Ukrainian territory it currently occupies, multiple news reports have said. In addition to land, Putin would win substantial sanctions relief. The US might also formally recognize Crimea, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014.
Ukraine would be allowed to maintain its military but be offered only vague security guarantees, to be enforced by an ad hoc coalition of allies (not including the US). For at least the duration of US President Donald Trump’s administration, it would be barred from joining NATO. Further details would be negotiated after the guns fall silent.
Despite such a favorable offer, Putin seems in no hurry to end his invasion, continuing to demand all four Ukrainian regions he only partially controls. For their part, Ukrainian leaders rightly argue that they need a clearer pledge of continued US military support: not necessarily boots on the ground, but air defense systems, help with cybersecurity and intelligence, and a US backstop for any allied peacekeeping troops. Otherwise any pause is likely to last only as long as it takes Russia to rebuild its forces. The agreement signed on Wednesday to give the US privileged access to Ukraine’s mineral resources is no substitute.
The White House ought to keep two things in mind. First, it cannot expect Ukrainians simply to accept a capitulation they anticipate would lead to a renewed assault. While they have little hope of ejecting Russian forces in the near term, their defenses have been stout. The country now has Europe’s largest standing army and manufactures many of its own weapons. Its people are weary of war but not ready to give in.
Second, Russia’s advantages are not as decisive as they appear. Over the past three years, its troops have advanced slowly and at enormous cost. Its war economy is straining under high inflation, labor shortages, soaring interest rates and dwindling foreign reserves.
After purportedly topping 4 percent last year, growth has sputtered to about zero, data compiled by Goldman Sachs Group Inc showed. Lower oil prices have dented a major source of budget revenue. The longer the war drags on, the greater the risk of economic collapse and social unrest at home. Putin has good reason to seek a deal — and reason to fear US pressure if he does not.
US officials have implied that they have presented their final offer and are prepared to “walk away” if the two sides cannot agree. Certainly, that would be wiser than underwriting a sham settlement that rewards aggression and invites future wars.
However, a better strategy would be to make clear the US is willing to provide logistical help to peacekeepers on the ground, continued aid for Ukraine’s military and defense industries, and backing for the country’s integration into Europe’s security architecture and eventual membership in the EU.
Simultaneously, US officials should let the Kremlin know that if it continues to balk, the US would further tighten sanctions, including secondary measures against buyers of Russian oil, and take steps to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. US military aid and intelligence would flow unimpeded.
No matter what deal he signs now, Putin would likely continue to view Ukraine as Russian and Ukrainians’ freedom as a threat. To endure, any peace agreement must therefore include a substantive deterrent against future aggression. The US ought to provide it.
The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.
When 17,000 troops from the US, the Philippines, Australia, Japan, Canada, France and New Zealand spread across the Philippine archipelago for the Balikatan military exercise, running from tomorrow through May 8, the official language would be about interoperability, readiness and regional peace. However, the strategic subtext is becoming harder to ignore: The exercises are increasingly about the military geography around Taiwan. Balikatan has always carried political weight. This year, however, the exercise looks different in ways that matter not only to Manila and Washington, but also to Taipei. What began in 2023 as a shift toward a more serious deterrence posture
Reports about Elon Musk planning his own semiconductor fab have sparked anxiety, with some warning that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) could lose key customers to vertical integration. A closer reading suggests a more measured conclusion: Musk is advancing a strategic vision of in-house chip manufacturing, but remains far from replacing the existing foundry ecosystem. For TSMC, the short-term impact is limited; the medium-term challenge lies in supply diversification and pricing pressure, only in the long term could it evolve into a structural threat. The clearest signal is Musk’s announcement that Tesla and SpaceX plan to develop a fab project dubbed “Terafab”
China’s AI ecosystem has one defining difference from Silicon Valley: It is embrace of open source. While the US’ biggest companies race to build ever more powerful systems and insist only they can control them, Chinese labs have been giving the technology away for free. Open source — making a model available for anyone to use, download and build on — once seemed a niche, nerdy topic that no one besides developers cared about. However, when a new technology is driving trillions of dollars of investments and leading to immense concentrations of power, it offered an antidote. That is part of
In late January, Taiwan’s first indigenous submarine, the Hai Kun (海鯤, or Narwhal), completed its first submerged dive, reaching a depth of roughly 50m during trials in the waters off Kaohsiung. By March, it had managed a fifth dive, still well short of the deep-water and endurance tests required before the navy could accept the vessel. The original delivery deadline of November last year passed months ago. CSBC Corp, Taiwan, the lead contractor, now targets June and the Ministry of National Defense is levying daily penalties for every day the submarine remains unfinished. The Hai Kun was supposed to be
RSS