The gravest danger facing Ukraine in peace negotiations is not a failure to reach a deal - it is reaching one that collapses in implementation, leaving the country in a limbo that primarily benefits Russia. Michael Kofman identified sequencing as the critical vulnerability that could undo any agreement.
As "Hvylya" reports, Kofman laid out his concerns in a special Foreign Affairs podcast episode on the war's fourth anniversary. The complete transcript of the conversation is published on our website.
"The biggest issue is sequencing. This may seem like the boring part, but it's critically important," Kofman said. The deal has multiple interlocking dimensions: a Russia-Ukraine component, a Russia-US component, a US-Ukraine component, and a Europe-Ukraine component. Who gives security guarantees to whom, who deploys a security force, what Russia gets from Washington in return - all must be resolved in a specific order. "Implementation collapses in sequencing," he warned. "And the failure to follow through will reveal who's negotiating in bad faith."
The practical questions are daunting. Should there be a ceasefire first, then a withdrawal? Does the US offer Ukraine security guarantees before or after Kyiv agrees to territorial concessions? If there is a referendum, one side will demand a ceasefire to hold it. Washington has reportedly been pressuring Kyiv to announce elections as part of the deal architecture. "The people who just want to get to a deal don't spend enough time thinking through whether the sequencing will work," Kofman said.
His core fear: the Trump administration could declare victory and walk away, leaving a deal that exists on paper but is never executed. "What's the point of signing a deal that's not worth the paper it's written on, that Russia might break shortly after?" Kofman asked. A pause in fighting, he assessed, would in the near term clearly advantage Russia - allowing Moscow to rearm while Ukraine faces pressure to demobilize, attract investment, and bring people home. The ongoing negotiations over the peace plan have yet to resolve these fundamental challenges. The precedent of Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 looms large.