Can Trump end an almost 3-year-old war “within 24 hours” after taking office, like he claims? Sure. Trump proved in his last administration that he can do the “impossible” that the D.C. establishment is continuously unwilling or unable to do – like personally de-escalating tensions with Kim Jong Un, moving the American embassy to Jerusalem, significantly improving Middle East stability with the unprecedented Abraham Accords, or forcing NATO members to pay their share. Yes, Trump can do it.
Trump’s proven leadership strength is exactly why Russian President Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy are now communicating that they are both open to discussions.
Barely after ballots were counted, Trump telephoned (separately) both Zelenskyy and Putin, laying the foundation for the strategic plan he will implement for peace. Trump told Putin not to further escalate the war, appeared to assure Zelenskyy of U.S. support (of some nature), and planned a “follow up” to discuss “resolution of Ukraine’s war.”
Trump has excellent leverage with both Putin and Zelenskyy to do so. For one, Putin knows Trump will use “Washington’s sizable military presence in Europe” if needed, and Zelenskyy, who has never been willing to negotiate, cannot continue to fight (even somewhat successfully) without U.S. military aid.
How could the Trump peace plan play out?
First, by signaling the U.S. position by simply calling for immediate ceasefire and peace negotiations – something that no world leader has done since Putin’s invasion, save Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
Orbán, who shares a border with Ukraine, is the only world leader to visit both Zelenskyy and Putin to discuss the chance for peace and could act as an effective regional moderator during Trump negotiations. Orbán has interests with both Ukraine and Russia – for example, thousands of ethnic Hungarians and dual citizens live in Ukraine (dozens died in the war) and Hungary’s economy is dependant on Russian energy. Orbán has welcomed over 5 million refugees across his borders from Ukraine, and has a vested interest in the war’s successful end.
Second, by cutting off U.S. military funding to Ukraine, forcing (encouraging?) Zelenskyy to consider the reality of his position and his need for negotiations. The U.S. remains by far the largest donor of military assistance to Ukraine, without which Ukraine arguably could not hold off Russian forces at all.
To date, U.S. Congress has appropriated over $55.5 billion in military assistance to Ukraine (weapons, equipment, supplies); Germany, Europe’s largest economy, is Ukraine’s second largest donor of military assistance at about $31 billion. But Germany recently cut aid to Ukraine in half, and its further assistance is uncertain.
In addition, even with billions of dollars that multiple nations have poured into Ukraine, its situtation is increasingly dire – Russia continues to gain territory (18% of Ukraine as of October 2024) and recently deployed thousands of North Korean soldiers to Kursk, the Russian territory taken over by an incursion of Ukrainian forces in September 2024.
Third, by negotiating a balance of financial and territorial concessions between Putin and Zelenskyy. Contrary to what the Ukraine-flag-waving U.S. Congress members proclaim, there can be no negotiations without concessions from both sides – including President Zelenskyy.
The exact territorial borders and lines to be drawn are for the future debate, but Russia could retain and consolidate territory it occupies in ethnic Russian areas of Ukraine, but significantly compensate the Ukrainian government for losses in life and territory. In addition, Zelenskyy should be given security guarantees for Ukraine’s future.
The Kursk region territory occupied by Ukraine could also be part of negotiations, swapped for some Ukrainian territory occupied by Russian forces.
Fourth, by guaranteeing NATO neutrality in Ukraine – taking Ukraine NATO membership completely off the negotiating table. This is a very critical part of negotiations, but one that will cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth within the visionless foreign policy establishment.
However, the point that Putin’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine was largely provoked by NATO expansion and not uncontrolled desire to expand westward, is a point Trump clearly understands, having remarked that President Joe Biden’s insistance on making Ukraine a NATO member was “going to start a war” and that before that “Russia was never going to attack Ukraine.”
This is, in fact, a historical point of contention, beginning in 1990 with U.S. victory in the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. At this time, diplomatic gestures and political assurances by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker (and other Western leaders) created the impression that NATO, in exchange for Russian support of German reunification, would not expand east. But, eastward expansion is exactly what NATO did, creeping ever closer to Russian borders. NATO has, in fact, added sixteen (16) new members since 1990.
In November 2021, at the brink of the Russian invasion into Ukraine, Putin told his foreign ministry to push Biden and NATO for “legal guarantees” regarding Ukrainian neutrality because Western “verbal commitments” had not been kept. Putin’s other concerns were similarly focused on Russian security: the West’s supply of modern lethal weaponry to Ukraine, NATO military infrastruture and maneuvers close to Russian borders, and the presence of U.S. anti-missile defense systems in Romania and Poland.
Furthermore contrary to popular assertion, Ukraine, full of government corruption and dependent on Western resources, is not NATO-ready. Rampant corruption in Zelenskyy’s defense ministry is mostly ignored by the media and Warhawks, as well as the fact that he fired top defense officials for “massive procurement fraud” including of ammunition and military food supplies.
A concession for non-NATO membership could be to encourage European allies to speed up Ukraine’s current path for admittance into the European Union (EU). This would have a positive effect on post-war rebuilding efforts, help secure Ukraine’s needed financial support for reconstruction, and take the burden for the effort off U.S. taxpayers who, under the Biden-Harris administration, are now the largest state donor of assistance to Ukraine.
NATO and D.C. Warhawks, and others fooled by the Biden-Harris’ declaration that the Russia-Ukraine war is a “fight for democracy” (in a nation led by an quasi-dictator who outlawed political opponents, cancelled elections, closed churches, and nationalized media), will find these steps for Ukraine’ peace plan hard to swallow. But, these are the steps necessary both to U.S. national interests and the positive future of Ukrainian citizens.
American citizens, committed to almost $200 billion, including paying the salaries and pensions of Ukraine’s public servants, cannot go on indefinitely enabling a war that is dangerously escalating to a broader and possibly nuclear conflict.
And, for Ukrainian citizens – who face the devastation of critical infrastructure, large shortages in troop manpower, worsening population decline, and this year’s record-high civilian casualties – a future of never-ending war is bleak. Yes, President Trump will end this war – and in record time.
Shea Bradley-Farrell, Ph.D. is a strategist in national security and foreign policy in Washington, D.C. and president of Counterpoint Institute for Policy, Research and Education. Her latest book is Last Warning to the West. Follow her at counterpointinstititute.org or on “X” @DrShea_DC and @CounterpointDC.
