Such appears to be the case with my dear friend of nearly 40 years, Professor Edward Lozansky, President of the American University in Moscow and founder of (among much else) of Russia House in Washington, who died in Moscow, Russia, on April 30 at the age 84.

It was indeed an extraordinarily fitting and monumental departure from such an extraordinary life that had been so passionately dedicated to the rescuing and survival of the human race from the supreme threat of thermonuclear world war, under which the entire globe still trembles.

For Ed was in Moscow organizing and leading manifold ceremonies commemorating the Spirit of the Elbe – the 80th anniversary on the very day of his death, of the meeting of the Soviet and US armies at Torgau on the banks of the River Elbe in Germany that sounded the death knell of Adolf Hitler’s infamous Third Reich on April 30, 1945.

For well over a quarter century, Ed was a major figure in both Washington and Moscow – in both of which cities he set up great institutions and educated generations of leaders on the need for Russian and American mutual understanding, coexistence, partnership and friendship to lead and renew the world.

He founded and ran the American University in Moscow. He also served as a Professor at National Research Nuclear University in Moscow. He founded and was the editor-in-chief of the online magazine “New Kontinent” (Kontinent USA). It became a platform for US dissidents who questioned the Republican-Democratic consensus on the waging of endless, bloody, costly wars around the world smashing societies in Africa, Europe and across the Middle East and Eurasia.

He was also a great admirer of Pluralia and when he died was working with his usual vision, generosity and limitless energy to set up cooperative programs between Pluralia and his recently founded Academy for International Cooperation.

He was a deeply happy private man with his beautiful wife Tatiana, their two daughters and grandchildren. He had close, admiring friends on every continent. And he was the warmest and most loyal of friends himself.

Ed had been a Soviet nuclear physicist. He had defied the KGB. He became a prominent anticommunist columnist for the Washington Times and deeply impressed American leaders including President Ronald Reagan and Vice President Dan Quayle (an intelligent, highly responsible and admirable man, as I can personally testify – and vastly different from the cartoon dolt depicted by the braying asses of the New York Times, the Washington Post and the other so-called mainstream US media.)

He published at least 13 books and more than a thousand articles. He was a polymath. He made major contributions in physics, mathematics, biophysics, and political science.

Ed was principled and fearless. He worked at Moscow State University and Military Tank Academy. But in 1975, he lost all of his research and teaching positions because of his outspoken public criticism of Soviet foreign and domestic policies. He was able to move to the United States the following year where he did important research at the Laser Fusion lab at the University of Rochester, New York, and taught at the American University in Washington, DC.  His work on fusion power was literally half a century ahead of its time.

He embraced the end of the Cold War and worked tirelessly for 35 years for understanding and fruitful cooperation between the American and Russian peoples. Right up to his death he was tireless and exceptionally successful in organizing conferences and seminars, promoting US- Russia science, education, and cultural exchanges. In 1986 he co-edited a series of essays on nuclear dangers and coexistence with the legendary Soviet physicist and peace activist Andrei Sakharov. They were close friends as well as collaborators.

Edward Lozansky: “The Americans are busy turning their country into the Soviet Union. And they don’t even realize they’re doing it.”

I first met Ed that same year. He was an eminent columnist also for The Washington Times and I had been brought on board to lead their coverage of the Soviet Union and the communist bloc. He was always wonderful company and also, for all his achievements and towering physical presence right up to his death, the most gentlemanly and unassuming of men. In Imperial Washington, which is filled with ludicrous pygmies prancing around as imagined “geniuses” in their own imagination, it was no wonder that he stood out so much, or that he was so consistently underestimated and sneered at by repulsive little backstabbers not fit to flush his toilet.

Just as Ed defied the Soviet state and the KGB, he was through the last quarter century of his life a prophet in the American political wilderness, warning warmongering, cowardly, armchair warrior Republicans and Democrats alike of the dangers of the out-of-control rampaging Deep State. He recognized and spoke out tirelessly against the pandemic of endless, hypocritical moralistic wars without strategic or human purpose, and without end, that Geroge W. Bush and his Praetorian Guard of neocon ideologists bequeathed to the American Republic.

In May 2015, while I was sipping a morning coffee with Ed in the apartment that he and Tatiana then maintained near American University on Washington’s Connecticut Avenue Northwest, he made an offhand comment that chilled me to the bone. And it still does.

“The Americans are busy turning their country into the Soviet Union,” Ed said. “And they don’t even realize they’re doing it.”

From Brezhnev’s Soviet Union to the careening, pathetic Washington policymakers and analysts of Bush, Jr. and Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, Ed Lozansky always stood out and stood tall. He was a great American as well as Russian patriot in the best and truest senses of the word. He embodied the truest and deepest of Christian and humane values. It was an agony to him that the Russian and Ukrainian peoples had been embroiled in such a horrific, appalling war by sinister outside forces.

Ed Lozansky was a big man and the best of men. And he cannot be replaced. But we were blessed to have him among us for so long.

“The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month…” Is there a U.S. History teacher who hasn’t recited this phrase while discussing World War I and the Armistice that promised its end? There is, however, another date worthy of mention in this discussion. It is November 19, 1919, on which date the United States Senate did something it had never done before: it rejected a peace treaty, specifically the Treaty of Versailles.

Trump is now faced with the same problems as Wilson with his “Fourteen Point” plan when he had to please the Senate, European Allies, and the American public. One major difference is that, contrary to WWI, when American soldiers were also dying, in Ukraine, they are not, except for mercenaries. Still, one’d assume that Americans who sincerely claim their adherence to Judeo-Christian values should oppose the war between two Christian nations. However, it looks like they are in the minority, especially among democrats. In Congress, they are joined by Republicans who would prefer this war to continue, since it weakens Russia, and who absolutely do not cares about the lives of Ukrainians.

Jared Peterson: “The West’s interest in Ukraine is merely a U.S. hegemony adventure, seeking to assert U.S. top dog dominance in Eastern Europe and thereafter the world.”

According to Pew Religious Landscape Study, nearly nine in ten American adults say they believe in God or a universal spirit. At the same time, unlike in the previous two decades of disastrous wars led by the United States and NATO in the Middle East, the current war in Ukraine involves no militant Islamic factor. Those now in the driver’s seat are wholly composed of self-identified Christians and Jews.

Jared Peterson from American Thinker is correct when he states that “the West’s interest in Ukraine is merely a U.S. hegemony adventure, seeking to assert U.S. top dog dominance in Eastern Europe and thereafter the world.”

Official Washington and its transatlantic loyalists call this war “unprovoked” and blame it all on Vladimir Putin. However, there is another America, which disagrees, including many well-known experts both on the Right and Left, who can hardly be dismissed as Putin’s bootlickers or useful idiots.

Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs, in his article “Ukraine is the Latest Neocon disaster,” didn’t hesitate to mention some specific names of those who got us into this quagmire when they declared that the United States must dominate the world and must confront rising regional powers that could someday challenge U.S. global or regional dominance.

The list of people in the know who believe that the West provoked this war is long. It keeps growing, but why not quote the late Pope Francis, who didn’t mince words by saying that the “barking of NATO at the door of Russia” might have led to the invasion of Ukraine and that he didn’t know whether other countries should supply Ukraine with more arms.

One would assume that formal meetings between government leaders would not be in the spirit of what is a solemn occasion, a sacred ceremony of the Pope’s funeral. However, I’d risk thinking that Pope himself would approve of these meetings if these efforts helped Trump in his search for peace. Still, for those like Macron, Starmer, Zelensky, von der Leyen, who, no one doubts, would attempt to convince him to continue this war, the killing and devastation, it is a total disgrace.

April 30th is an important date in American politics. This is the day 100 for the American President in the White House, and all attention will be on the reports of his achievements and failures. Nothing can be more critical than Peace, and on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of Elbe River reunion, when Americans and Russians were allies there were many celebrations in Moscow, Washington, and German city of Torgau, where related memorials are located, those who took part or watched them online wished Trump success in his Peace efforts.

A symbolic event took place not far from the Elbe Ceremony in downtown Moscow, when an automobile motorcade with Trump advisor Steve Witkoff drove by on the way to the Kremlin, and the crowd greeted him with Russian and American flags.

By withholding de jure recognition of Russia’s battlefield gains, Ukraine can continue to claim, and demand return of, Russia’s battlefield gains. In other words, the agreement evades the central issue.

According to the agreement, Ukraine must renounce all NATO aspirations.  But Putin’s other demands, demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine are apparently not included in the agreement.

Washington will lift the sanctions against Russia, and there will be US-Russia economic cooperation, which seems to mean that Russia will open aspects of its economy to foreigners for exploitation, a disastrous Russian decision.

This is what the Russian oligarchs and Atlanticist Integrationists, who have never supported the war, want.  How the Russia’s military feels about victory being shoved aside by a negotiated settlement is unknown.

But is it a settlement?  Zelensky’s latest statement at this time of writing is that he will not concede a square inch of territory to Russia.  If Zelensky has to be coerced, and as he is not legally or constitutionally the current president of Ukraine as his term of office has expired, successive Ukrainian governments can legitimately claim that the agreement is not valid.

Moreover,  Ukraine and Europe have placed themselves behind an alternative agreement.  In their proposed agreement, Ukraine will consent to begin talks with Russia, Europe, and the US about the territorial issues. Moreover, Ukraine will be granted US security guarantees similar to Article 5 in the NATO treaty.  In other words, Ukraine becomes essentially a de facto member of NATO.  Additionally, there will be no restrictions on Ukraine’s armed forces or on the operations of foreign forces on Ukrainian territory, and Russia will compensate Ukraine for war damage.

Clearly, the two proposals have nothing in common.  Unless Europe gives in to Trump, a split is implied between the US and NATO, a split that could leave the US and Russia in an alliance that excludes Europe.  I have no explanation why Europe is taking this risk.

As we can see from the facts, only two of the four parties agree to the deal. Moreover, even if there is a deal, in the absence of de jure recognition of Russia’s territorial claims, the deal amounts to little more than kicking the can down the road.

In fact, John Helmer says that the deal is just a mechanism, a cover, for moving Russia aside so that Washington can get on with its war with China. 

Here is how Helmer describes the situation:

“The politico-military strategy driving the US negotiators and prompting Trump’s tweets, is not a peace deal with Russia, nor even US withdrawal from the war in Europe. It is a strategy of sequencing one war at a time – the war in Europe to continue in the Ukraine with rearmed Germany, Poland and France in the lead, supported by Trump; and the US war against China in Asia.

“Sequencing these wars so as not to fight both enemies simultaneously – that’s the formula devised for Trump by Wess Mitchell, a former State Department appointee in the first Trump Administration,  and his business partner Elbridge Colby, now the third-ranking Pentagon official as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.   ‘The essence of diplomacy in strategy,’ Mitchell has just declaimed in Foreign Affairs, ‘is to rearrange power in space and time so that countries avoid tests of strength beyond their ability.’ . .  

“Mitchell and Colby have convinced Trump and his negotiators that Russia has been badly damaged by the Ukrainian war which the Obama and Biden Administration have fought. Russian weakness, especially the perception that President Putin is both politically vulnerable and personally susceptible to US business inducements, is Trump’s strong card, and he should play it now.”

The goal is not peace, but to make money off of two wars: Europe and Ukraine’s war with Russia, and Washington’s war with China.  And perhaps a war with Iran for Israel thrown in. 

Readers can listen to Helmer’s presentation of what he says is actually occurring in his discussion with Ray McGovern on Nima Alkhorshid’s program ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgG4ZmTZQww ), and they can read it in several of Helmer’s recent articles in Dancing with Bears ( https://johnhelmer.net/one-war-at-a-time-and-plenty-of-money-to-be-made-in-the-meantime-this-is-trumps-game-as-the-russian-and-chinese-general-staffs-understand/ ).

Helmer’s source for his explanation of what is really happening is an article in Foreign Affairs by West Mitchell, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia in the first Trump term.  Mitchell is currently working with Trump’s current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby to sequence America’s wars with Russia and China as the US lacks the power to take on both simultaneously. Mitchell’s article was published on April 22, 2025, in the May/June 2025 issue of Foreign Affairs.  

Mitchell writes that the process of sequencing the wars with Russia and China should  begin “by bringing the war in Ukraine to an end in a way that is favorable to the United States. That means that when all is said and done, Kyiv must be strong enough to impede Russia’s westward advances” [for which no evidence exists, showing Mitchell’s mind to be controlled by the false narrative]. Washington should use the Korean War formula: “prioritize an armistice and push questions about a wider settlement into a separate process that could take years to bear fruit, it it ever does.”  This, of course, is what Washington’s de facto recognition of Russia’s territorial claims ensures.

Mitchell carelessly then reveals the intended deception of Babe-in-the-Woods Putin: “The United States should pursue a defense relationship with Ukraine akin to the one it maintains with Israel: not a formal alliance, but an agreement to sell, lend, or give Kyiv what it needs to defend itself. But it should not grant Ukraine [ de jure ] NATO membership. Instead, the United States should push European states to take responsibility for Ukraine—and for the security of their continent more generally.” This strategy capitalizes “on Putin’s special relationship with the Russian oligarchs” and dupes Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s negotiator, ” into pressing the Kremlin to accept a short-term military armistice which stops well short of the demilitarization and denazification goals of the Special Military Operation.”

So, as Mitchell describes it, the “peace agreement” is a Washington deception to set up, yet again,  “Babe-in-the Woods Putin” for the eventual destruction of Russia.

Can I believe this?  Yes, I can.  Helmer has  been watching things for a long time and reporting on them.  This scenario is not a product of Helmer’s imagination.  It is spelled out in an article in Foreign Affairs, long the arbiter of American foreign policy. The author, West Mitchell, a former Trump high official, clearly holds to the neoconservative policy stated by Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfwitz that the purpose of American foreign policy is hegemony over the world. If American hegemony requires war, war it is.

The Russians, with a large part of the mindless Russian establishment so desirous of being part of the West, have never paid any attention to the implication for Russian sovereignty of the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony. This doctrine has not been denounced by President Trump. Consequently, Russia will be destroyed as the Russian government stupidly walks into deception after deception. Under Putin and Lavrov it will be one Minsk Agreement after another.

The question I have is:  Is Trump a part of the deception not only of Putin but also of the American people, or is this a deal he has accepted without realizing its consequences because he is desperate to end the conflict as he promised?  If Trump himself is part of the deception, then we have the explanation why the American Establishment did not prevent his reappearance in the Oval Office.

Trump met Zelensky in Rome on Saturday before Pope Francis’s funeral for what the White House described as “very productive” talks. The US president believes that the Ukrainian leader “really has no choice” but to sign up to the proposal, according to a source close to his special envoy Steve Witkoff. Trump is threatening to pull out of the peace process next week unless a deal is agreed.

The US proposal, presented by Witkoff to Moscow and Kyiv, was reported to include formal US recognition of Russia’s control over Crimea, the peninsula that was annexed in 2014, and de facto recognition of Russia’s control over areas of southern and eastern Ukraine that its forces have seized since the full-scale invasion of 2022.

A rival European and Ukrainian proposal makes discussion about control of territory dependent upon talks that would follow a ceasefire.

“Trump’s view is that this land has been seized and it is not going back,” said a source close to Witkoff.

“The deal on the table is that the Russian-occupied territory is going to remain occupied. Russia’s not pulling it out of it. That part is set in stone.”

The US believes that, if Ukraine rejects the deal, the war would go on for months and possibly years, with Kyiv reliant on Europe for funding and munitions, the source said. “The [US] funding cut-off actually is going to have as much of an impact as the weapons cut-off [this year], because Ukraine uses that money to buy more weapons from other allies,” the source added.

Asked if this was a “take it or leave it” moment for Zelensky, the source said the US saw it as “take it or take it”.

The Americans also believe European public opinion will turn against the huge expenditure required to keep Ukraine in the war as the continent heads towards recession — partly caused by Trump’s tariffs.

Witkoff held three hours of talks with President Putin in Moscow on Friday. Yuri Ushakov, a Kremlin foreign policy aide who took part in the talks, described the meeting as constructive and useful. “This conversation allowed Russia and the United States to further bring their positions closer together, not only on Ukraine but also on a number of other international issues,” he said. “As for the Ukrainian crisis itself, the discussion focused in particular on the possibility of resuming direct negotiations between representatives of the Russian Federation and Ukraine.”

Zelensky has argued that Ukraine’s constitution forbids him from formally recognising Crimea as part of Russia, and has ruled out signing any peace deal that hands over control of Ukrainian territory.

Trump showed his uncompromising line on Russian-occupied Ukraine when he told Time magazine on Friday that “Crimea will stay with Russia” and again blamed Kyiv for provoking Moscow’s invasion.

However, The Times understands that he is flexible on formal US recognition of Crimea at this stage, and is not trying to force Zelensky to sign away Ukrainian sovereignty, but to accept the Russian occupation.

Mariana Betsa, the Ukrainian deputy foreign minister, countered that Ukraine would do “whatever it takes” to take back Crimea.

“Our position is very clear and our president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is very clear on that. Crimea is Ukraine,” Betsa told Times Radio. “We’ll never recognise the attempted annexation by Russia. We will never recognise it as a Russian territory and we will take whatever it takes … to occupy our land, our country.”

She spoke hours after Yaroslav Moskalik, a senior Russian general, was killed in a car bomb attack in Moscow. The Kremlin blamed Ukrainian special forces for the attack.

Vitali Klitschko, the mayor of Kyiv, said that Ukraine may have to concede land to halt the war with Russia. He said it could be a “temporary” solution to end the three-year-long conflict. “One of the scenarios is … to give up territory. It’s not fair. But for the peace, temporary peace, maybe it can be a solution,” Klitschko told the BBC.

In London, the former commander of the Ukrainian armed forces said that Russia would continue to wage war against his country until it suffers a massive defeat.

“As long as the enemy has the resources, forces, and means to strike at our territory and attempt offensive actions, he will do so. This is a war of attrition,” Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s ambassador to Britain, said at the UK-Ukraine Defence Tech Forum. “Only the complete destruction of [Russia’s] ability to wage war, that is the military-economic potential, can put an end to this.”

While the gap between the two combatants remains wide, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, speaking to CBS on Thursday, sounded optimistic that a deal might be reached soon.

“There are several signs that we are moving in the right direction,” he said. “Still there are elements of this deal which need to be fine-tuned.”

Russia’s plans for Ukraine

In previous meetings, Mr. Putin insisted that he was ready to stop fighting, but only if he was shown a road map to a permanent settlement that achieved Russia’s main war objectives.

After those talks, Mr. Trump publicized a plan that Russian analysts say was basically acceptable to the Kremlin. In it, a full ceasefire would take effect along the existing battlefront, the United States would grant legal recognition to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, and Ukraine would forgo NATO membership. In addition, the U.S. would begin easing the blizzard of sanctions that have been leveled against Russia for over a decade.

Ukraine would receive “robust security guarantees” provided by European powers – but not the U.S. – and some small territorial swaps might take place. Major issues that Mr. Putin has explicitly listed as Russian war goals would be left to further negotiations. Those issues include substantial Ukrainian demilitarization, the exclusion of Ukrainian ultranationalists from government, language and religious rights for Ukrainian Russian-speakers, and the final territorial settlement.

The U.S. had intended to present that Moscow-Washington agreement to Ukrainian and European leaders in London this past week. But that fell through when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy balked, especially at recognizing Russian ownership of Crimea, and top U.S. diplomats canceled plans to attend the meeting.

Mr. Trump blamed Mr. Zelenskyy for derailing the peace process. But he also chided Mr. Putin for launching a massive aerial attack Wednesday night on Kyiv, claiming “We’re putting a lot of pressure on Russia, and Russia knows that.”

(Although Russian media reports have blamed Ukraine for the apparent assassination of Lt. Gen. Yaroslav Moskalik when a car exploded in Moscow today, there is no indication that the general’s death has had an effect on the peace talks.)

A big gap between the adversaries

In the absence of consensus, Ukrainian and European officials have drawn up an alternative list of steps toward peace that differs very sharply from the outline earlier agreed between Mr. Putin and Mr. Witkoff.

The pro-Ukrainian draft rejects any form of recognition of Russian occupation of any Ukrainian land, rules out limits on Kyiv’s military, calls for strong security guarantees for Ukraine backed by the U.S., urges against rapid sanctions relief for Russia, and suggests that Ukrainian reconstruction be funded by Russian assets that were seized in the West at the war’s outset.

Experts in Russia say the subject of the present U.S.-Russia talks is to find ways, if any, to reconcile these two very different approaches and arrive at a common position before any ceasefire can be arranged.

“Right now, Russia is willing to discuss and move forward on the basis of the Trump plan. But what to do if this proves absolutely unacceptable to Ukraine, Britain, and European powers?” says Alexei Mukhin, director of the Center for Political Information, an independent consultancy in Moscow. “Russian leaders want assurances that the U.S. will work to bring them all onto a common path.”

Mr. Putin has spelled out Russia’s key war objectives many times, and analysts say that after over three years of hard fighting and reported massive casualties, he probably doesn’t have much room for compromise.

“It’s wartime, and Russia is awash with patriotic rhetoric,” says Sergei Strokan, an international affairs columnist for the Moscow business daily Kommersant. “If Putin should backtrack on his basic demands, which he himself has expressed, that would be a very hard sell for Russian public opinion.”

An escape hatch for Mr. Putin?

Many Russian analysts express frustration with Mr. Trump’s “superficial” approach, which emphasizes haste and broad strokes at the expense of comprehensive negotiations that consider every detail and contingency.

“Russia has said many times that it wants a reliable, long-term peace settlement, not a quick memorandum that fails to resolve any of the basic issues,” says Mr. Strokan.

Moscow might request the Trump administration to split the negotiation process, separating the process of normalizing U.S.-Russia relations – a key Russian goal – from the thorny, and likely impossible, efforts to achieve a generally acceptable peace in Ukraine, says Mr. Mukhin.

“The stream of talks on restoring bilateral ties is proving very successful. Both sides want it and it promises a lot of long-term benefits,” he says. “Why should the broader relationship be held hostage to Ukraine? Let those negotiations continue on a different track.”

Many experts say that in the absence of a clear and generally-agreed blueprint for a peace settlement, no ceasefire is likely to last. Some Russian analysts even suggest that Mr. Trump’s frequently repeated threat to walk away from peace talks if they don’t bear quick fruit might be the outcome best for Russia.

“Trump is looking for a pretext to continue the process of normalizing relations with Russia, while getting out of Ukraine,” says Sergei Markov, a former Kremlin adviser. “By agreeing to his ceasefire plan, Putin is giving him that pretext.”

His clear implication: When the ceasefire expires without what Moscow regards as a satisfactory settlement, Russia will return to the battlefield to reach its goals.

The process of making Ukraine a de facto member of NATO started in 1992, one year after the collapse of the Soviet Union. 1994 marked the first year that Ukrainian forces participated in NATO exercises, although these were held in Poland and the Netherlands. The following year, 1995, witnessed the creation of Ukraine’s Yavoriv military base as the NATO training center, although this was not formalized until 1999.

1999 was no coincidence… it was the year that NATO expanded to the East by accepting the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland as new members on March 12, 1999. This provoked alarm in Russia because it obliterated the promise of former US Secretary of State James Baker, that NATO would not move one inch to the East. President Bill Clinton broke that promise.

Part 2 will cover the period, 2000 – 2010. Part 3 will cover 2011 – 2021. The plan to use Ukraine as a proxy to weaken Russia was born in the 1990s and matured into war in 2022. I hope you find this informative.

I did a podcast today with Garland Nixon. That is posted at the end of this article.

1992

NATO-Ukraine Relations in 1992 — In 1992, Ukraine formally established relations with NATO by joining the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) in March 1992. The North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) was established by NATO in December 1991 as a forum for dialogue and cooperation between NATO member states and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states, in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War.

The NACC ostensibly was created to foster political consultation and build confidence between former adversaries, reflecting NATO’s “hand of friendship” to the newly independent and transitioning states of Central and Eastern Europe, which also included Russia. The NACC’s activities paved the way for deeper cooperation, notably leading to the launch of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program in 1994, which allowed for more practical and individualized cooperation between NATO and partner countries.

In 1997, the NACC was succeeded by the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), which expanded the partnership framework to include more countries and provided a more sophisticated forum for dialogue and cooperation, reflecting the evolving security environment and the deepening relationships between NATO and its partners. Russia also joined EAPC, but was suspended from the organization in 2014 after the people of Crimea voted to reunite with Russia.

• Ukraine’s cooperation with NATO began in March 1992 when it joined the newly established NACC, marking the start of formal relations and opening the door for future military cooperation .
• The first concrete participation of Ukraine in a NATO-linked military exercise did not occur until September 1994, when Ukraine joined the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program and participated in joint training exercises such as “Cooperation Bridge” in Poland .

1993

In 1993, Ukraine began its military cooperation with the United States and NATO, although it had not yet joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace (which happened in 1994). The most significant development in 1993 was the initiation of the U.S.-Ukraine State Partnership Program (SPP), established between the California National Guard and Ukraine. This program laid the groundwork for ongoing joint training, military exchanges, and exercises.

The U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) advocated for establishing a Military Liaison Team (MLT) in Kyiv as early as 1993, but the deployment was delayed due to diplomatic considerations. Nonetheless, military cooperation and engagement activities were ongoing under the Defense Attaché Office. The cooperation in 1993 set the stage for more formal and larger-scale military exercises such as “Peace Shield” and “Sea Breeze,” which began after Ukraine joined the Partnership for Peace in 1994.

1994

Cooperative Bridge 94

• In September 1994, Ukraine participated in its first NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) joint training exercise,
  “Cooperative Bridge 94,” held at the Biedrusko military training area near Poznan, Poland, from 12 to 16 September 1994 .
• This exercise involved approximately 600 soldiers from 13 NATO and Partner nations, including Ukraine, and focused on basic unit and individual peacekeeping tasks and skills.
• The aim was to share peacekeeping experience, develop a common understanding of operational procedures, and improve interoperability among NATO and Partner military forces .
• The exercise was conducted under the supervision of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and was jointly planned with Polish military authorities.

Spirit of Partnership

Later in 1994, a Ukrainian air-mobile unit participated in another PfP training exercise called “Spirit of Partnership,” held in the Netherlands.

1995

Peace Shield 1995:

The primary NATO/USEUCOM military exercise conducted with Ukraine in 1995 was “Peace Shield,” a joint US-Ukrainian exercise held at the Yavoriv training area near Lviv from May 23 to May 27, 1995. This exercise was part of the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, which aimed to increase interoperability and cooperation between NATO and partner countries, including Ukraine.

Autumn Allies 95:

Another notable exercise was “Autumn Allies 95,” which involved approximately 400 U.S. Marines and 200 Ukrainian soldiers. The exercise focused on promoting interoperability in peacekeeping operations and was conducted later in 1995.

The Partnership for Peace program was central to these activities, providing a framework for joint exercises, training, and defense planning between Ukraine, NATO, and USEUCOM.

1996

Cossack Step-96:

In 1996, Ukraine hosted a military exercise called “Cossack Step-96” in cooperation with Great Britain. This exercise was conducted “in the spirit of Partnership for Peace (PfP),” NATO’s program for building trust and
interoperability with non-member countries, including Ukraine at the time. The exercise involved approximately 140 participants from Ukraine and Great Britain.

During this period, Ukraine was actively increasing its military cooperation with NATO through the PfP framework, which included joint training and exercises aimed at enhancing Ukraine’s ability to participate in multinational operations with NATO forces. The U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) was involved in
developing security cooperation with Ukraine, focusing on familiarization activities, military professionalism, and closer ties to NATO.

1997

Cooperative Neighbor-97:

In July 1997, Ukraine hosted the Cooperative Neighbor-97 joint exercise at the Yavoriv training grounds in western Ukraine. The exercise involved approximately 1,200 soldiers from the United States, Greece, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, and Macedonia. Cooperative Neighbor-97 was conducted under NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, which aimed to build
trust and interoperability between NATO members and partner countries. The exercise focused on joint training and cooperation, and was observed by U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen and Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksandr Kuzmuk.

Sea Breeze 1997:

Sea Breeze 1997 was a multinational maritime exercise cohosted by the United States and Ukraine in the Black Sea region. The exercise included U.S. Marines and Ukrainian forces and was initially planned to simulate an intervention in a fictional ethnic conflict, but the scenario was changed due to Russian
sensitivities. The revised scenario focused on providing humanitarian aid after an earthquake. The land-based segments were moved from Crimea to the Ukrainian mainland to avoid local protests and Russian
opposition. While conducted “in the spirit of NATO’s Partnership for Peace,” NATO itself maintained a hands-off approach, with only Turkey among NATO members sending ships to participate directly.

Significance:

Both exercises were part of the broader NATO-Ukraine cooperation established by the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, signed in July 1997, which set the framework for ongoing military and political collaboration. These exercises marked early steps in Ukraine’s integration into Euro-Atlantic security structures and were designed to enhance interoperability, readiness, and mutual understanding between Ukraine, NATO, and U.S. European Command forces.

1998

Cossack Express 1998 (May 1998)

• Location: Ukraine (multiple sites).
• Participants: Ukraine, U.S., and other PfP nations.
• Focus: Disaster response, humanitarian aid, and crisis management.
• Significance: Aimed at improving civil-military coordination in emergencies.

Peace Shield 1998 (June 1998)

• Location: Yavoriv Training Area, Ukraine (near Lviv).
• Participants: Ukraine, U.S., and other Partnership for Peace (PfP) nations.
• Focus: Command post exercise (CPX) focused on peacekeeping operations, crisis response, and interoperability with NATO standards.
• Significance: Part of the “Peace Shield” series, which began in 1995 to prepare Ukrainian forces for potential NATO-led peacekeeping missions.

Sea Breeze 1998 (July 1998)

• Location: Black Sea (near Odesa, Ukraine)
• Participants: Ukraine, the U.S., and other NATO partners.
• Focus: Maritime security, search and rescue (SAR), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and naval interoperability.
• Significance: Part of the annual “Sea Breeze” series (started in 1997), enhancing Ukraine’s cooperation with NATO in Black Sea operations.

Cooperative Nugget 1998 (September 1998)

• Location: Hohenfels Training Area, Germany (part of the Cooperative Partner series).
• Participants: Ukraine, U.S., and other NATO/PfP countries.
• Focus: Peacekeeping operations, joint command structures, and multinational coordination.
• Significance: Helped Ukrainian forces train alongside NATO troops in a simulated UN/NATO-style peacekeeping mission.

The U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) and other U.S. military entities were actively engaged in planning and executing military-to-military contacts and exercises with Ukraine in 1998, focusing on familiarization, confidence building, and demonstrating U.S. commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty . The annual planners’ conference for military contacts was held in April 1998 in Stuttgart, Germany, to develop the 1999 plan, indicating ongoing and planned engagement. The transition of responsibility for U.S. military engagement in Ukraine from the Joint Staff to USEUCOM was underway in 1998, further institutionalizing these activities. The establishment of a Regional Training Centre at the Yavoriv training area in Ukraine was discussed as a future initiative for multinational training and exercises.

1999

Peace Shield 99 (May 1999)

• Location: Yavoriv Training Area, Ukraine (near Lviv)
• Participants: Ukraine, NATO members (including the U.S.), and Partnership for Peace (PfP) countries.
• Focus: Command post exercise (CPX) focused on peacekeeping operations, interoperability, and crisis response.
• Significance: One of Ukraine’s major annual multinational exercises under the PfP framework.

Cooperative Partner 99 (June–July 1999)

• Location: Ukraine (Odesa and Myrhorod regions)
• Participants: Ukraine, U.S. (USEUCOM), and other NATO/PfP nations.
• Focus: Maritime and air operations, including search and rescue (SAR), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and naval interoperability.
• Significance: Part of the Cooperative Partner series, enhancing Black Sea security cooperation.

Sea Breeze 99 (July–August 1999)

• Location: Black Sea (Odesa and Crimea)
• Participants: Ukraine, U.S. Navy (6th Fleet), NATO allies (including Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria), and PfP countries.
• Focus: Maritime security, amphibious operations, and crisis response.
• Significance: Part of the annual Sea Breeze series, which began in 1997 and continues today.

Cossack Express-99 (September 1999):

Held at the Yavoriv training grounds in Ukraine starting September 18, 1999, this NATO-sponsored exercise involved British and Ukrainian motorized infantry units of battalionsize. The exercise focused on rehearsing joint actions in UN authorized peacekeeping operations under NATO command, modeled after operations in the Balkans.

Cossack Steppe-99:

Conducted at the Nowa Deba training range in Poland beginning September 20, 1999, this exercise included company-sized motorized infantry units from Ukraine, Poland (a new NATO member at the time), and Britain. It also rehearsed joint peacekeeping operations under NATO command, with participation from the Ukrainian-Polish joint battalion.

Black Sea Partnership-99:

From September 20–25, 1999, the Ukrainian navy’s flagship Hetman Sahaydachny participated alongside NATO and partner country warships in this exercise, which was held mostly in Turkish waters. The aim was to practice joint naval operations and naval support for NATO-led peacekeeping operations on land.

CONCLUSION:

I spent 23 years scripting military exercises for US Special Forces. While I was not involved in the scripting of any of these NATO/US military exercises, I understand the purpose and process of them. These were not harmless games. They were designed to train and equip the Ukrainian military to fight Russia, potentially with NATO’s direct involvement. We have seen that come to fruition since the start of the Special Military Operation in 2022. It is no coincidence that Russia hit the Yavoriv NATO military facility on March 13, 2022.

On March 9, Ukraine’s Chicago consulate posted photos of Consul Serhiy Koledov participating in a commemoration for Nazi collaborator Roman Shukhevych, whose troops massacred Jews and Poles. This is the story of how that event, at St. Joseph the Betrothed Ukrainian Catholic Church in Chicago, happened — and why some of the same people who usually speak out against Holocaust revisionism are refusing to say anything about it.

Holocaust distortion continues to be a rampant problem, with monuments to monsters going up regularly. But continuing celebrations of Shukhevych, whose men were responsible for many thousands of deaths during World War II, stand out: The U.S. State Department’s Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues has twice highlighted Shukhevych glorification as an example of Holocaust revisionism.

Similar condemnations have come from the World Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Israel.

Why? For starters, unlike some other collaborators, Shukhevych actually served in Nazi uniform. He was a hauptmann, or captain, in the Nachtigall Battalion, an auxiliary police unit in the Third Reich military that participated in the deadly 1941 Lviv pogrom.

After getting hands-on experience in conducting a genocide with the Germans, Shukhevych went on to lead the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, a paramilitary group that butchered thousands of Jews and between 70,000 and 100,000 Polish villagers.

So why does Ukraine still insist on lionizing him?

Well, first of all, it’s a mistake to ascribe that insistence to Ukraine, unilaterally. Two million Ukrainians died fighting against the Nazis and their lackeys. Only a portion of the country’s populace today will defend its Nazi collaborators; millions more revile them. Saying Ukraine idolizes Shukhevych is like saying America idolizes Robert E. Lee.

But those who do honor Shukhevych vehemently deny that they’re commemorating a Nazi collaborator. They instead dub him a “hero” and “freedom fighter of Ukraine” who resisted Moscow — those are exact terms used by the Chicago consulate in describing the March commemoration. They insist his memory has been unfairly smeared by Russia. They’ll even claim that the UPA saved Jews, a lie that’s been disproved by scholars.

These excuses are similar to those peddled by fans of the Confederacy and, more currently, Hamas. That’s what Holocaust revisionism is: an act of transforming war criminals into role models.

Almost anyone affiliated with a political movement can claim to be a freedom fighter. The Hamas militants who butchered, kidnapped and raped civilians in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, were, to some, fighting for freedom. The question is: Whose freedom, and the freedom to do what?

The freedom Shukhevych fought for — and exercised — was freedom to slaughter Jews in ditches and murder Poles in particularly graphic fashion, including by crucifixion.

So why are so many so hesitant to call out celebrations of his memory?

Neither Chicago’s main Jewish federation nor the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum responded to numerous requests for comment. I met the same silence from the Anti-Defamation League — which, the same week as the ceremony at the Chicago consulate, lambasted podcaster Joe Rogan for an episode featuring a man who traffics in Holocaust revisionism.

Rogan is extremely influential. But surely a fete for an actual Holocaust perpetrator should warrant mention, too?

It was silence, as well, from Rep. Brad Schneider, who represents Chicago’s north suburbs. In 2022, Schneider, who is Jewish, proudly announced that he was drafting legislation to censure Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene for comparing former President Joe Biden to Adolf Hitler. “She owes the American people, the survivors and families of those persecuted by the Nazis, and every family of what is still the ‘Greatest Generation’ an immediate apology,” he proclaimed.

If Ukraine doesn’t want to be accused of honoring Nazis, the first thing to do is quit honoring Nazis.

One would think the representative who couldn’t sleep knowing someone compared Biden to Hitler would be aghast at the celebration of a Nazi collaborator in his backyard. But Schneider’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment.

I suspect that much of the reason why has to do with the broad movement for solidarity with Ukraine amid its ongoing war after Russia’s 2022 invasion. I’ve been told that drawing attention to Ukraine’s penchant for honoring Nazi collaborators feeds into the Kremlin’s attempt to paint Ukrainians as Nazi lovers.

But it isn’t justifying that war to make the point that if you don’t want to be accused of honoring Nazis, the first thing to do is quit honoring Nazis.

Indeed, the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine has been a godsend for Shukhevych fans. People rightfully outraged by Russia’s war crimes now think twice about criticizing Kyiv, or its emissaries elsewhere. Those who glorify Holocaust perpetrators cynically weaponize this sympathy to commit brazen acts — like throwing a lovefest for a Third Reich hauptmann in the heartland of a nation that lost more than 405,000 men in the fight to defeat the Nazis and their allies.

I look at photographs of the Jews hunted and murdered by Shukhevych’s men in Lviv and elsewhere and ask myself: If I were them, how would I feel about my fellow Jews — safe, privileged Jews with jobs in Congress, or with organizations that collect millions to fight antisemitism — failing to speak out when my tormentors get cheered as heroes?

How far we have fallen to even require the question.

Lev Golinkin is a regular contributor to the Forward whose work has also appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, NBC, The Boston Globe, Politico Europe, and Time.com. His memoir, A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka, chronicles his immigration from Ukraine.

Troops, engineers and construction workers from Ukraine — which is engaged in a disastrous war with Russia since February 2022 and unsure of continued U.S. assistance under President Donald Trump — entered Moldova without informing its poorer, landlocked neighbour which also shares its border on the west with Romania.

Known for its exquisite wines, Moldova, a country of 2.4 million, has been buffeted by an energy crisis following the discontinuation [by Ukraine on Jan. 1] of Russian gas supplies through Ukraine. The country — whose ethnic majority Moldovans are peeved at being dominated by Ukraine on one side and Romania on the other — is also plagued by huge unemployment among the youth.

“The Kyiv regime began constructing a second barrier line at the Lower Dniester Hydroelectric Power Plant from the Moldovan side without prior notice to Chisinau (Moldova’s capital). This (has) created an imbalance of 470 MW between the Moldovan and Ukrainian power systems, with Chisinau’s energy losses rising to 7.1 percent. For the average Moldovan consumer, this meant electricity costs instantly more than tripled,” a Moldovan energy official told Open, asking not to be named because he is not authorised to speak to the media.

The construction is on the Moldovan side of the Dniester River, which flows from Ukraine to Moldova, the breakaway region of Transnistria, then to Ukraine and finally to the Black Sea, a person in the know explained.

“They also occupied a section of the Odesa-Reni highway near the Moldovan village of Palanca [the site of a border crossing] as well as a hydroelectric power plant in the north near the Ukrainian city of Novodnistrovsk (specifically in the Ocnita district),” the first official noted, adding that the Ukrainian encroachment, steered by its special forces and a U.K.-based security services provider, started by the autumn of last year.

Palanca is Moldova’s lowest easternmost point. 

According to another source, “There are fears, real fears, that the Ukrainians aim to draw a line across from their border to Palanca to secure the passage of the river fully, meaning they could lop off a chunk and occupy a part (of Moldova) that juts into Ukraine and claim it as their own. Right now, the river is the border.” Neither Ukrainian nor Moldovan government officials responded immediately to emails from Open.

These developments have stirred anguish and a sense of helplessness among Moldovans, the first official added. The locals, according to the World Bank, are reeling from “the spillover effects” of the Russia-Ukraine war. The Bank noted in a report that in Moldova, “poverty remains pervasive, particularly in rural regions where access to services and viable economic opportunities is limited.”

The report said that “traditional means of poverty alleviation, such as remittances and social assistance, are slowing, while low labour force participation and employment rates impede a shift to employment-based poverty reduction, underscoring the urgency for structural reforms.”

In addition, close to a quarter of Moldova’s young people aged 15-34 are neither employed nor pursuing education.

Ethnic Moldovans account for close to 78 percent of the nation, which is predominantly Christian; Romanians make up 8 percent and Ukrainians less than 5 percent. Several officials in the government of President Maia Sandu are Romanian nationals, adding to disaffection among a majority of locals.

Analysts argue that the news of this apparent violation of Moldova’s sovereignty by Ukraine is bound to embarrass President Volodymyr Zelensky at a time when the Trump administration has distanced itself from the war. Calling it his predecessor “Biden’s war,” the U.S. president has taken the credit for sealing a limited ceasefire between the warring sides, vowing to work towards a complete truce.

Ullekh N.P. is a writer, journalist, and political commentator based in New Delhi. He is the executive editor of the newsweekly Open and author of three nonfiction books: War Room: The People, Tactics and Technology Behind Narendra Modi’s 2014 Win, The Untold Vajpayee: Politician and Paradox and Kannur: Inside India’s Bloodiest Revenge Politics. His book on Cuba, Mad About Cuba: A Malayali Revisits the Revolution, part travelogue and part political commentary, was released in November 2024.

Ukrainian officials have acknowledged that its army has no chance in the foreseeable future of reconquering the territories now occupied by Russia. Vice President J.D. Vance’s statement that the U.S. plan would “freeze the territorial lines…close to where they are today” simply acknowledges an obvious fact.

On the other hand, by reportedly agreeing to a ceasefire along the present front line, Putin has indicated his readiness to abandon Russia’s demand that Ukraine withdraw from the parts of the provinces claimed by Russia that Ukraine still holds. This too is common sense. The Ukrainians will never agree to give those up, and, judging by the slowness of Russia’s advance to date, conquering these territories in the face of Ukrainian resistance backed by the U.S. would be a long and horribly bloody process from which Russia would gain only devastated wastelands.

Even without a U.S. veto, NATO membership for Ukraine is not realistic, both because all existing NATO members have made clear that they will not fight to defend Ukraine, and because several European countries will also veto Kyiv’s membership. Indeed, during the peace talks at the war’s outset, President Volodymyr Zelensky himself said that since all the leading NATO governments (including the Biden administration) had refused to promise NATO membership within five years, a treaty of neutrality with security guarantees was the best way for Ukraine to go.

At the same time, the Trump plan contains one big surprise: the offer to recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea. Unlike neutrality and de facto (not de jure) acceptance of Russian control over the other territories, this really constitutes a major concession to Russia. It is not, however, as big as the Western media is suggesting, since it does not cover the other four provinces in eastern Ukraine that Russia claims to have annexed.

Nor is it clear yet whether the Trump administration is simply offering formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea itself, or whether it — and Moscow — will also insist on Ukraine doing so, which is almost certainly politically impossible for the Zelensky government. White House press spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt has said that Trump’s offer of recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea applies only to the U.S., and that he is not demanding that Ukraine follow suit.

Given this ambiguity, it was unwise and thoughtless of Zelensky to declare immediately that “there is nothing to talk about here.” Maybe he doesn’t need to talk about it — and this kind of public rebuff is no way to retain the Trump administration’s sympathy.

There is a certain legal, moral, and historical basis for the U.S. at least to treat Crimea differently, since Crimea was only transferred from the Russian Soviet Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Soviet decree in 1954, and without any pretense of consultation with the local population. The Crimean majority vote to join Russia in 2014 also appears to have been generally credible, while the “referenda” held by Russia in the other four provinces in the middle of the war are rightly seen as wholly unreliable.

Will this plan bring peace? Russia appears close to accepting it — though at least as revealed so far, the plan does not appear to address other Russian demands, including the rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine, limitations on the Ukrainian armed forces, and, above all, a bar on a European “reassurance force” in Ukraine, something on which the British, French, and other governments have been working intensively.

It is possible that the Kremlin will try to load additional and genuinely unacceptable conditions onto the peace plan (for example, radical reductions in the Ukrainian armed forces). In that case, Trump should blame Moscow for the failure of the peace process, and, while walking away from it, should also continue U.S. aid to Ukraine.

A key motive for Moscow’s acceptance is that the Putin administration is indeed extremely anxious that Trump should blame Ukraine and the Europeans, not Russia, for a failure of the talks, and therefore that if, as threatened, he “walks away” from the peace process, he will also cut off military and intelligence aid to Kyiv.

For that same reason, the Ukrainians and Europeans would be insane to reject this plan outright, as initial statements suggest they may. As already noted, the formal goals set by Ukraine, for NATO membership and the recovery of its lost territories, are practically impossible to achieve. In concrete terms therefore, Ukraine loses nothing by agreeing to Trump’s plan.

Assuming that the British government sticks to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s statement that a European “reassurance force” can enter Ukraine only if the U.S. acts as a “backstop,” then this force is also not going to happen. Trump has no intention of providing such a guarantee, which would amount to Ukrainian NATO membership by another name. Key European governments including Poland’s have also said that they would not participate in any such force.

At present and for a considerable time to come, the British and French armies simply do not seem to have the troops for such a deployment in a context of possible war with Russia. A former British army chief, General Lord Dannatt, has said that (given the need for rotation and training of troops) up to 40,000 British soldiers would need to be designated for such a force, and “we just haven’t got that number available.” Creating such a force for Ukraine would also mean ending British commitments to defend existing NATO members, notably the Baltic states and Poland.

At present, the likely response of Kyiv and most European governments to the Trump plan appears to be “no, but.” In other words, they will reject the plan as it stands, but declare their readiness to negotiate on aspects of it. This, however, would be deeply unwise, if indeed Russia is ready to accept it. Trump is waiting on them and he is not a patient man. His administration’s threat to leave Ukraine and Europe to their own devices could hardly have been clearer. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stated:

“The Ukrainians have to go back home, they have to run it by their president, they have to take into account their views on all of this. But we need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this is doable in the short term. Because if it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on.”

If the U.S. does indeed “move on,” Ukraine will have placed itself in a terribly precarious situation, and West European countries may face a choice between deep humiliation and immense danger. For if U.S. aid is withdrawn, Ukraine’s ability to hold its present line would be greatly reduced, and the chances of a Russian breakthrough greatly increased.

If that happened, Europeans would either have to admit that their “ironclad” promises to Ukraine were made of paper, or send their troops into Ukraine. They could of course stay in Kyiv and Odessa, far away from the actual fighting, but how would that help Ukraine? And unless this intervention were worked out as part of a deal with Moscow that ceded much additional territory to Russia, how could European air forces avoid being drawn into direct combat?

Given these acute dangers, and given that details of the Trump plan still have to be worked out, the appropriate Ukrainian and European response should be “yes, but” — certainly if they wish to have any hope of retaining Washington’s support for Ukraine.

The Trump plan would leave 80% of Ukraine independent and free to try to move towards membership in the European Union, and, in historical terms, that would be a great (albeit qualified) victory for Ukraine. A rejection of that plan can only promise Ukraine greater defeat — possibly catastrophically greater.

Anatol Lieven is Director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He was formerly a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and in the War Studies Department of King’s College London.