What’s needed is balance, not appeasement of Putin
Derek H. Burney
May 14, 2025
National Post
Donald Trump prides himself in being the consummate dealmaker but has yet to negotiate on anything significant in his second term as president, least of all a complex peace deal on Ukraine. He backpedalled on “terminating” U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell a week after seemingly threatening to do so, and erratically modified his blunderbuss approach to tariffs. Administration officials have described these walkbacks as negotiating tactics, but critics say they’re evidence that Trump was never as deft or resolute as he had claimed, suggesting further that his drop in the polls may have been the cause.
After promising to end the war in Ukraine “in one day,” Trump now acknowledges to his advisers that achieving peace is more difficult than he previously thought. His tactics have been decidedly one-sided. Trump’s special envoy to Russia (and Iran), Steve Witkoff — a real estate developer and close friend of the president — is not encumbered with expertise on either. But he is in the catbird seat with Trump, upstaging Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is now also the national security advisor.
Witkoff has offered concession after concession to Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to one European official familiar with the negotiations: denying Ukraine membership in NATO and recognizing Russian rule in Crimea and other occupied territory. Witkoff has also praised fraudulent referendums in Ukraine as real. His sole objective seems to be to placate Putin.
When Trump proposed a one-month ceasefire in March as a precursor to peace negotiations, Ukraine readily accepted but Russia ignored, instead flagrantly increasing its bombing of Ukrainian civilians. A frustrated Trump pleaded publicly with “Vladimir” to “stop” on April 24 and made empty threats that increased sanctions might follow. Putin countered with a proposal for a three-day ceasefire from May 8 to 11.
Frustrated by the lack of progress to peace, the U.S. president declared on April 18 that the U.S. could walk away entirely from the conflict, a refrain reiterated that day by Rubio, who added that Trump may have to “move on” to face other global challenges. Vice-President JD Vance lamented last Wednesday that Russia was “asking for too much.” If they were serious, their words should have been accompanied by additional munitions for Ukraine and tighter sanctions on Russia. Congress is contemplating both. Then, last Thursday, Trump proposed a 30-day unconditional ceasefire.
Most recently, over the weekend, leaders of four European countries (France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Poland), tacitly backed by the White House, threatened sanctions on Nord Stream 2 unless Russia agreed to a 30-day ceasefire. Putin countered, proposing to start
direct talks with Ukraine on May 15 in Turkey. Ukraine prefers a ceasefire first before direct negotiations.
Russia is weak economically and militarily, and the U.S. could increase that vulnerability. It could make the war more costly for Russia. Tighter sanctions on oil and gas, which account for more than 40 per cent of Russia’s exports according to the United Nations, would be crippling. The U.S. could also use frozen Russian funds to pay for more munitions, intelligence and training support for Ukraine without burdening U.S. taxpayers. In March, the U.K. estimated that Russian soldiers have suffered more than 900,000, while a recent BBC analysis suggests between 185,000 and 260,700 have been killed.
Putin may prefer a prolonged war because he would have difficulty reintegrating thousands of conscripted soldiers into a war-fuelled economy, which could jeopardize his hold on power. Without additional pain, he could simply drag the talks out, keep fighting and wait for the U.S. to walk away. But the U.S. has a lot at stake, and running away would risk repeating the embarrassing withdrawals from Vietnam in the 1970s and, more recently, Afghanistan. Unlike both instances, the U.S. has lost no soldiers in Ukraine.
NATO allies are perplexed by what is happening, constrained by their inability to replace key American munitions and concerned about whether any security commitments will be honoured by the U.S. This will undoubtedly dominate discussion when NATO leaders meet next month in The Hague.
No one can fully comprehend Trump’s inclination to pivot to Putin in the war with Ukraine. He does seem to prefer strong dictators like Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping versus “soft” democratic leaders in NATO. His cavalier disregard for the carnage wreaked by Russia on Ukraine and his unwillingness to sustain solemn commitments to resist unilateral aggression have abjectly betrayed values endorsed by the U.S. since the end of World War II.
Establishing peace between a lawless aggressor and its vulnerable victim is a daunting challenge for any mediator, but the U.S. is not a neutral observer in the conflict. It has been Ukraine’s indispensable ally. Putin should not be rewarded for starting the war. He has never honoured any agreement signed with Ukraine, which is why Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is rightly skeptical.
Putin has maintained openly that Ukraine is not a “real country” and belongs back in the fold of what used to be the Soviet Union. Ukraine will never accept a deal that formalizes the annexation of its land, no matter how much pressure is exercised by Washington.
A comprehensive and credibly monitored ceasefire that preserves the status quo without prejudice and is anchored in strict security guarantees for Ukraine may be the most practical outcome, obliging Putin to explain to Russians why his lunge against Ukraine failed.
The framework deal signed on April 30 on minerals and energy splitting development revenues equally between Ukraine and the U.S. is an encouraging example of co-operation between the two countries. While it lacks concrete security guarantees, it does signal that the U.S. will take a clear stake in Ukraine’s future. That agreement followed Trump’s calmer meeting in the Sistine
Chapel with Zelenskyy in late April, just before the funeral of Pope Francis. Both deals may inject necessary balance into the peace talks, something that Ukraine uniquely deserves.
Derek H. Burney is a former 30-year career diplomat who served as Ambassador to the United States of America from 1989 to 1993. Derek H. Burney is Chairman of Burney Investment Group. He is Chairman of Enablence Technologies Inc. and a member of the Advisory Board of Paradigm Capital Inc. He currently serves as a ranch hand on ranches owned by two of his sons. Mr. Burney was Senior Strategic Advisor to Norton Rose Fulbright Canada from May 2006 until July 2019. Mr. Burney was President and Chief Executive Officer of CAE Inc. from October 1999 until August 2004. Prior to joining CAE, Mr. Burney was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Bell Canada International Inc. (1993-1999). From 1989-1993, Mr. Burney served as Canada’s Ambassador to the United States. This assignment culminated a distinguished thirty-year career in the Canadian Foreign Service, during which he completed a variety of assignments at home and abroad, including a period as a Deputy Minister of External Affairs. From March 1987 to January 1989, Mr. Burney served as Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister. In July 1993, he was named an Officer of the Order of Canada. Mr. Burney was conferred Honorary Doctor of Laws degrees from Lakehead University, Queen’s University, Wilfrid Laurier University, Carleton University and University of Windsor.