Trump's Plan for Ukraine: Victory or Capitulation - An Analysis by The Guardian.

According to ТСН: No one should accept an unfair option that Ukraine may be forced to accept. The aggressor will gain territory while the victim will be left with the wounds of war. However, the concern that has arisen in Washington over the new peace proposals serves as a troubling signal. The conflict in Ukraine is approaching a resolution that won't be an outright defeat or a 'triumph', but rather an interim result that combines elements from both sides.

This is noted by American historian and analyst Stephen Wertheim.

The Paradox of 'Trump's Plan': Capitulation or Strategic Success

The recent 28-point plan from the Trump administration, criticized in Congress, has been accused of 'capitulation' to Moscow. However, it could provide Kyiv with significant strategic successes. Wertheim believes that there are no serious limits for the Ukrainian army in peacetime, despite Russia's attempts to impose strict constraints. The only requirement is a limitation of personnel to 600,000, which essentially exceeds the number of professional military personnel that Ukraine could maintain in peacetime. Ukraine will also receive substantial security guarantees from the US and Europe - the strongest in history, even if they do not meet NATO Article 5.

Wertheim also recalls that Putin initiated the invasion to undermine Ukraine's pro-Western course. After the fighting ends, Ukraine will be militarily stronger and more hostile towards Russia.

The Danger of 'Couch' Moralizing

Influential voices in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats, are already calling this potential outcome immoral. Senators like Mitch McConnell and Jeanne Shaheen oppose the 'least bad compromise.' Wertheim sharply criticizes this position.

“It's easy to demand ideal outcomes when you’re thousands of miles away and not paying the price for your 'moral superiority'.”

According to the analyst, prolonging the war indefinitely will leave Ukraine in a worse position: smaller, weaker, and shattered. There is a risk that Ukraine will become a victim of the 'chronic inability of the US to realistically assess the outcomes of its wars.'

Historical Lessons: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq

Wertheim cites several examples where the US failed to stop in time:

• Vietnam: Richard Nixon sought 'peace with honor' and continued the war for four more years, secretly bombing Cambodia and Laos, which only delayed inevitable defeat.

• Afghanistan: Barack Obama realized that the Taliban could not be defeated solely by military means but hesitated to negotiate a power-sharing agreement.

• Iraq: George H.W. Bush succeeded in expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, but dreams of regime change led to the fateful invasion of 2003.

These examples are important for understanding US strategy and can serve as lessons for Ukraine.

A 'Dirty Deal' Worth Making

Wertheim emphasizes that ending the war requires embracing a mixed verdict. Ukraine will not achieve complete victory, so a compromise that gives Ukraine a chance of survival seems the only way out.

“If it looks like a dirty deal, as a certain degree of appeasement, it's because that's what it is. But if there’s no better alternative, then this dirty deal is worth making.”

On the other hand, the West and Ukraine often underestimate the results already achieved. Ukraine has resisted attempts by Russia to capture Kyiv for nearly four years, while the aggressor has lost over 600,000 soldiers.

The analyst also raises the issue of NATO, emphasizing that 'total security' is unattainable, and even if NATO accepts Ukraine, it won’t provide real security guarantees.

Ultimately, Ukraine needs realistic support and the capacity to preserve what has already been won at a great cost.