A bad peace deal is also a loss
CIUS weekly report on North American media coverage of Ukrainian affairs, 5–11 January 2025
Four publications (Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and The Globe and Mail) were selected to prepare this report on how Ukraine has been portrayed in the North American press during the past week. The sample was compiled based on their impact on public opinion as well as on their professional reputation, popularity among the readership, and topical relevance. These publications represent centrist viewpoints on the political spectrum.
This MMS report covers only the most-read and relevant articles about Ukraine, as ranked by the respective North American publications themselves in the past week. Its scope covers promoted articles on home pages and articles from special sections on Ukraine, with the hashtag #Ukraine, from the paper editions of the publications, and about Ukraine from opinion columns and editorials.
Featured topics
- The world and Ukraine: Ukraine needs a new representative in the US; a bad peace deal is also a loss; Donald Trump is facing a catastrophic defeat in Ukraine.
- Russia at war: Frozen Russian assets are Europe’s trump card; Russia’s shadow fleet fuels war economy while dodging sanctions.
MMS summaries
Ukraine needs a new representative in the US. Jim Geraghty (Washington Post) argues that Ukraine needs to reboot its representation in the US in light of the results of the presidential and congressional elections. If Kyiv wants to keep the arms supplies coming, it must formulate its arguments “to be persuasive to Trump, his administration and congressional Republicans.” This may require thanking Ukraine’s ambassador to the US, Oksana Markarova, for her service and sending a replacement. According to the author, “Markarova has done yeoman work making Ukraine’s argument to the Biden administration and congressional Democrats,” but there are questions about the quality of her interaction with Republicans. There are arguments to be made in favour of aiding Ukraine that appeal to the right-wing political spectrum, “including the need to counter Russia’s brutal suppression of evangelical Christian churches in occupied territories and its hunger for Ukraine’s vast natural resources.” In addition, Ukraine territorial concessions would make the US look weak, which would embolden other autocracies. According to Geraghty, “Starting on Jan. 20, Republicans will be running the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. Ukraine needs an advocate who understands them, speaking with a fresh voice to their perspective and priorities.”
A bad peace deal is also a loss. The editorial board of the Washington Post emphasizes that a bad peace treaty between Ukraine and Russia would be as bad for the US as Kyiv’s defeat in the war. The way Russia’s war against Ukraine is resolved will determine global prospects, not just the ones for Europe: “At stake is the credibility of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which immediately aided Ukraine after Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion and vowed to continue their support ‘as long as it takes’ to defeat Russia’s aggression.” A pullback would mean that “the United States and its allies lack staying power and that their promises come time-stamped as valid only until the next election date.” This would send a signal to autocracies around the world that they can act in the same way as Russia. Despite the fact that time is the most important resource that Kyiv is losing, quick decisions in resolving the Russo-Ukrainian war are dangerous: “Ukraine can hardly survive another year of this devastating war. But the haste to find a negotiated settlement could produce a bad one that would reward Mr. Putin for his land grab and guarantee he will launch a new attack for more territory once he has a chance to rebuild his depleted arsenal.” According to the editorial board, “A poor settlement would also leave Ukrainians bitter after seeing their homes, schools and factories destroyed, and friends and family members killed. Much of their anger would be directed at the Western backers who betrayed them. This is a fight America, and Ukraine, cannot lose, especially with a bad deal.”
Donald Trump is facing a catastrophic defeat in Ukraine. Robert Kagan (Atlantic) argues that Ukraine’s loss would be a complete fiasco for the US and the newly elected president. Donald Trump has promised to end the Russo-Ukrainian war quickly, but he is facing a harsh reality: the Kremlin is not interested in a negotiated settlement that would leave Ukraine intact as a sovereign state. Vladimir Putin is only increasing his ability to wage war: “In December, he increased defense spending to a record $126 billion, 32.5 percent of all government spending, to meet the needs of the Ukraine war. Next year, defense spending is projected to reach 40 percent of the Russian budget. (By comparison, the world’s strongest military power, the US, spends 16 percent of its total budget on defense.)” The end of Ukraine is and has always been his goal: “Putin’s aim is not an independent albeit smaller Ukraine, a neutral Ukraine, or even an autonomous Ukraine within a Russian sphere of influence. His goal is no Ukraine…Putin does not just want to sever Ukraine’s relationships with the West. He aims to stamp out the very idea of Ukraine, to erase it as a political and cultural entity.” Also, Russia’s war against Ukraine is an opportunity for Moscow to “strike a damaging blow at American global power.” According to the author, Donald Trump must choose “between accepting a humiliating strategic defeat on the global stage and immediately redoubling American support for Ukraine while there’s still time.” If Washington stops or cuts aid to Kyiv, it will not only destroy Ukraine, but also widen the gap between the US and its allies, which would be in line with Moscow’s desire to split the West. To make this less likely, President Trump will have to do something he did not want to do: “renew aid to the Ukrainians immediately, and in sufficient quantity and quality to change the trajectory on the battlefield. He would also have to indicate convincingly that he was prepared to continue providing aid until Putin either acquiesced to a reasonable deal or faced the collapse of his army. Such actions by Trump would change the timelines sufficiently to give Putin cause for concern. Short of that, the Russian president has no reason to talk about peace terms.” According to Kagan, “Whether Trump can figure out where the path he is presently following will lead him is a test of his instincts. He is not on the path to glory. And unless he switches quickly, his choice will determine much more than the future of Ukraine.”
Frozen Russian assets are Europe’s trump card. Adrian Karatnycky (Foreign Policy) believes that the transfer of frozen Russian assets to Ukraine is a step that is in line with the statements and priorities of newly elected US President Donald Trump. This is the best tool to support Ukraine and put pressure on Russia, provided that Moscow does not want to come to the negotiating table. In the author’s opinion, this step will help to compensate for the reduction in US financial support: “Were the Trump administration to significantly curtail assistance to Ukraine, the $300 billion in frozen assets would be able to replace US expenditures for roughly six or seven years.” Until now, US and European states have been reluctant to use this resource, agreeing only to provide Ukraine with the interest earned on these foreign exchange reserves as collateral for $50 billion in loans. However, due to the change in Washington’s policy, European leaders may be more open to such a solution. To minimize the risks, Europe and the US should agree that the confiscation of foreign exchange reserves will remain a rare occurrence that will take place under special conditions: “First, that the target of such sanctions launched a military aggression against and occupation of the territory of a UN member state; second, that the war against another sovereign state was launched without military aggression by the state under attack; and third, that it formally annexed that territory.” According to Karatnycky, “Such a coordinated and consolidated Western approach would greatly strengthen the Trump administration’s hand as it seeks a diplomatic solution that preserves Ukraine’s national security and sovereignty.”
Ukraine’s demographic crisis battling population decline. Sergey Maidukov (Globe and Mail) reports that Ukraine is facing a demographic crisis exacerbated by war, with population loss and aging posing severe challenges to the nation’s future. The author highlights the staggering toll of war, noting that “too many young men never come home from the war,” and the resulting impact on families and birthrates. Millions of Ukrainians have fled abroad, many putting down roots as the conflict drags on, while others are displaced within the country. With more retirees than working citizens and birthrates below 1.0, Ukraine is rapidly approaching a demographic abyss. Recovery will be hindered by the loss of human capital critical for rebuilding. The war’s effects will ripple across generations, with children left orphaned and parents striving to protect sons from future conscription. The lack of infrastructure, energy shortages, and constant trauma are creating conditions that discourage families from returning or rebuilding. The author questions whether Ukraine can sustain its population, concluding that even after a ceasefire, many may hesitate to return to a nation scarred by war. Without significant efforts to reverse this decline, Ukraine risks becoming a land where “life’s joys are scarce.”
NATO’s fragile unity faces Russia’s growing threat. Luke McGee (Foreign Policy) shares a grim observation by Keir Giles, a leading analyst on European defence and Russia, who opens his latest work by stating that Europe remains dangerously unprepared to defend itself against Russia, even after years of warnings and the wake-up call of Ukraine’s invasion. In his book Who Will Defend Europe? An Awakened Russia and a Sleeping Continent, he critiques Western leaders for failing to grasp the true scope of Putin’s ambitions, writing: “For some people it is hard to imagine that in the twenty-first century, Europe is once again threatened by a megalomaniac dictator.” This unwillingness to confront the growing threat, the author argues, leaves Europe exposed in a rapidly changing global order. Giles outlines how Europe’s over-reliance on NATO’s Article 5 and US military protection has created a false sense of security. He examines Russia’s two-pronged military strategy: an immediate, brute-force war in Ukraine and a long-term effort to rebuild its armed forces for future conflicts. While Putin lacks the military capability to defeat NATO outright, Giles warns that Russia may attempt to exploit political divisions within the alliance: “Putin and Russia understand that they can’t defeat NATO militarily; but they may believe they can defeat NATO politically.” McGee writes that Giles’ book serves as both a critique and a call to action for European leaders to address systemic defence shortcomings and foster public understanding of the stakes involved. He emphasizes that Europe must not only bolster its defences but also convince its citizens of the costs required to safeguard freedom. “Stopping and punishing overt Russian aggression now is the best way to deter Chinese aggression in the future.” McGee concludes with a reminder that the public “deserves to know the truth about Russia’s threat, however uncomfortable it may be.” “And if voters’ response to Ukraine has told us anything, it’s that when the stakes are explained, they are disposed to do the right things, even at enormous costs to themselves.”
Russia’s shadow fleet fuels war economy while dodging sanctions. David McHugh (Globe and Mail/Associated Press) explains that Russia’s shadow fleet, consisting of over 400 aging tankers, plays a pivotal role in circumventing the G7’s $60 per barrel price cap on Russian oil. These vessels, often owned by opaque entities in non-sanctioning countries like the UAE or Seychelles, enable Russia to sustain its oil revenues, with export earnings averaging $16.4 billion per month in 2024 — 5% higher than the previous year. According to the Kyiv School of Economics, “Russia faces no significant constraints on its budget or war spending,” as oil revenues support its trade balance, stabilize the ruble, and fund military production. The shadow fleet’s ability to operate outside Western insurance systems has reduced the discount on Russian oil, earning Moscow an additional $9.4 billion in 2024. However, this evasion strategy raises significant safety and environmental concerns. With an average vessel age of 18 years, the fleet is prone to accidents and oil spills, threatening vital waterways like the Baltic Sea and English Channel. In May 2023, a shadow tanker narrowly avoided grounding in the Danish Straits, highlighting the risks posed by the poorly maintained ships. Efforts by the EU, the UK, and others to monitor these vessels have resulted in some successes, such as sanctions on over 100 ships and the seizure of the Eagle S, a Russian-linked oil tanker impounded by Finnish authorities on 26 December, under suspicion of damaging undersea infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. The vessel was accused of deliberately dragging its anchor, causing damage to the Estlink-2 power cable connecting Finland and Estonia, as well as four telecommunication cables.