Ukraine’s soldiers are pushing back against a US peace plan, and their reactions are nothing short of explosive. ‘It’s a slap in the face,’ one soldier told us, echoing the sentiment of many on the frontlines. But here’s where it gets controversial: while some see the plan as a necessary evil to end the bloodshed, others view it as a betrayal of everything they’ve fought for. The BBC spoke to several Ukrainian soldiers who shared their unfiltered opinions on the leaked US proposal, and the responses are as diverse as they are passionate.
The Territory Trap: A Bitter Pill to Swallow
The US plan suggests Ukraine cede the entire Donbas region to Russia, a proposal that has sparked outrage among many soldiers. ‘We’ve bled for this land,’ said Matros, a veteran fighter. ‘Giving it up would dishonor the sacrifices of our fallen comrades and civilians.’ But Andrii, a staff officer, offers a more pragmatic view: ‘We might not like it, but holding onto Donbas with military force is no longer feasible.’ This is the part most people miss: the emotional toll of surrendering territory versus the harsh reality of limited resources. Snake, another soldier, puts it bluntly: ‘We’re fighting for land, not people, and more of our soldiers are dying every day.’
Downsizing the Military: A Double-Edged Sword
The proposal to cap Ukraine’s armed forces at 600,000 has also ignited debate. On one hand, Snake argues that many soldiers will be needed for reconstruction post-war. ‘Why maintain such a large army if there are security guarantees?’ he asks. Andrii agrees, pointing out that Ukraine’s economy couldn’t sustain a massive peacetime military. However, Shtutser, an army medic, vehemently disagrees: ‘Our army is the only thing keeping us from defeat and enslavement.’ This divide highlights a deeper question: Can Ukraine afford to reduce its military strength, even with promises of protection?
Security Guarantees: Trust Issues Abound
The plan promises US security guarantees but rules out NATO membership and the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine. Yevhen, a drone operator, supports the UK’s proposal to deploy a ‘reassurance force’ through a coalition of willing nations. ‘This is our best shot at winning,’ he says. Yet, Andrii doubts Europe’s ability to provide meaningful security, calling it ‘spineless and divided.’ Meanwhile, Shtutser dismisses US guarantees as ’empty promises.’ This raises a critical question: Who can Ukraine truly rely on for its future security?
Fresh Elections: A Ray of Hope or a Distraction?
One of the least controversial aspects of the plan is the call for fresh elections within 100 days of the war’s end. With corruption scandals plaguing the current government, many soldiers see this as a necessary step. ‘The current leadership isn’t trusted,’ says Snake. Marin adds, ‘We need to root out corruption,’ while Andrii believes a ‘complete reset’ is needed, though not immediately. Yet, some worry that focusing on elections could divert attention from the war effort.
The Bigger Picture: Tired of Fighting, but at What Cost?
Despite the criticisms, one sentiment is clear: many soldiers are exhausted. ‘If it stops the war, it works for me,’ Andrii admits, even with reservations. But Yaroslav remains skeptical: ‘This plan won’t work.’ The question now is: Can a compromise be found that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty while ending the conflict? And this is where we want to hear from you: Is the US peace plan a realistic path to peace, or a dangerous concession? Share your thoughts in the comments below.