On November 21, 2024, the resolve of US President-elect Trump to end the conflict in Ukraine has begun to influence both Russia and Ukraine. The subtle changes in the battlefield situation seem to indicate that both sides are demonstrating greater determination and making efforts to achieve as many gains as possible before the crucial moment arrives to prepare for ending the conflict with a final push.
However, the situation has become more complex since reports emerged on November 17 that Biden lifted restrictions on Ukraine’s use of US long-range weapons to target Russian assets inside the country, and Ukraine vowed to acquire nuclear weapons to counter Russia’s aggression.
On November 19, Ukraine for the first time used US long-range weapons to strike Russian targets within the country, launching 6 Army Tactical Missiles (ATACMS) to hit a Russian ammunition depot in Karachof, Bryansk Oblast. Ukraine started using these long-range missiles to attack Russian assets within less than 48 hours after the US lifted restrictions on their use.
The Russian military depot in Karachof is about 115 kilometers from the Ukrainian border, located approximately 190 kilometers north of the Kursk front line where the Russian forces have been actively engaging with the Ukrainian military. The Ukrainian General Staff reported that the attack led to multiple secondary explosions, indicating a significant amount of ammunition has been destroyed.
Zelensky stated in an evening speech on the 17th that “long-range capability” is a key point in Ukraine’s “victory plan.” There were reports that “we have obtained permission to take appropriate action,” “but bombing is not just talk, missiles will speak for themselves.”
It was unexpected that missiles would speak so quickly. Reactions to the Biden administration’s decision vary. President-elect Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., criticized Biden’s move as “low IQ.” He wrote that the military-industrial complex seems to want to ensure the start of the Third World War before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives.
Some see this as a “gift” from Biden to Trump. Ben Hodges, former US Army commander in Europe, said on the 18th that this could help the Trump administration resolve the conflict. Biden’s decision could be a “gift to Trump, who is expected to retain this policy as a leverage point based on his intentions,” “Biden’s decision, though late, will never be too late.” However, he questioned Biden’s open policy, “Why limit the lifting of restrictions to the Kursk region?”
Meanwhile, European media reported that France and the UK had allowed Ukraine to use Scalp and Storm Shadow cruise missiles to target deep Russian assets. However, on the morning of the 18th, this news was deleted. The UK government said it fully supports Ukraine but did not comment on authorizing the use of Storm Shadow missiles to strike Russian assets. Given that the UK and French leaders had expressed support for Ukraine’s demand for long-range strike capabilities but were waiting for the US’s position, it is likely that they will take unified action after confirming the US’s lift on restrictions.
On the 19th, US Permanent Representative to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, announced that a new additional security assistance plan for Ukraine would be announced in the coming days. She stated that the US would continue to increase its security assistance to Ukraine, including artillery, air defense systems, armor, and other needed capabilities and ammunition.
In recent weeks, the Biden administration has accelerated its military aid program to Ukraine. It is believed that the Biden administration plans to fulfill the commitment to provide billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine before leaving office.
Last month, Zelensky made a provocative statement at the EU summit in Brussels, calling for NATO to accept Ukraine’s membership quickly or Ukraine will become a nuclear state again. It is said that Trump’s attitude towards this ultimatum was “fair.” Zelensky claimed that Trump had agreed to his proposal before he made the statement and asserted that joining NATO would provide his country with ultimate security to protect it from Russian aggression.
Some analysts believe that President Trump-elect could provide Ukraine with nuclear weapons to decisively defeat and deter Russia under Putin’s leadership. This seems to contradict Trump’s strategy of preparing to halt further military assistance to Ukraine. However, understanding the essence of Trump’s entire peace plan as “peace through strength” helps rationalize this seemingly contradictory viewpoint.
Regardless of how the situation in the Ukraine conflict and any unexpected actions by all parties may change now, any complex developments will not fundamentally affect the efforts to end the war until Trump announces the end of the Russia-Ukraine conflict peace plan, except to inject some variables and unpredictability into Trump’s efforts.
It is possible that people have realized that Putin’s reason for starting this war, aside from his unsubstantiated claims of “Ukraine being neo-Nazi,” “ethnic cleansing,” and other unfounded excuses, mainly aims to turn Ukraine into a puppet state similar to Belarus to isolate NATO from Poland, Romania, and Moldova far from Russia.
If Trump’s “peace plan” is based on the relationship between NATO and Russia, rather than solely on the relationship between Ukraine and Russia, freezing the current front lines, maintaining Zelensky’s government and Ukraine’s sovereign state status, and bolstering Ukraine’s military presence, Ukraine could align with NATO and the US even if it cannot join NATO temporarily. If NATO countries send troops to control the non-military “buffer zone” between Russia and Ukraine, it might prevent Putin from achieving his goal of undermining the Ukrainian government and isolating NATO, potentially increasing NATO’s military presence in border regions with Russia.
We cannot predict the specific details of President Trump’s plan to end the Ukraine conflict. However, achieving this goal will undoubtedly be a significant challenge. First, convincing Ukraine to accept a situation that is currently unfavorable to its territorial integrity and national aspirations will be challenging. Still, compared to making Russia yield, it might be relatively easier since President Trump might insist on keeping Ukraine as a powerful military bloc and offer Ukraine stronger military support than the Biden administration promised, provided that Ukraine accepts Trump’s “peace plan,” or else the US may withdraw its support for Ukraine. Zelensky is unlikely to risk losing US and Western military support by fighting a losing battle for occupied territory against Russia. In fact, Ukraine would find it difficult to sustain the war without US support. Russia’s military efforts at this point, besides aiding Trump’s persuasion for Ukraine to join the “peace plan,” may not have significant strategic significance.
If Trump’s “peace plan” cannot be achieved due to reasons in Ukraine, the US might not only vigorously support Ukraine but also possibly become more deeply involved or even directly participate in the conflict until Russia agrees to sit down at the negotiating table according to the conditions set by the US and the West, ultimately ending the war.
In all the above scenarios, the US may continue to support Ukraine, which is why President-elect Trump did not comment on Biden’s lifting of restrictions on long-range weapons and had no opposition to Ukraine developing nuclear weapons. This also aligns with President Trump’s principle of “peace through strength.”
For Putin, Trump’s “peace plan” could mean yielding to the current advantageous territorial situation and maintaining his regime decently, provided that his army withdraws from the military buffer zone and permanently ceases further military actions precisely as demanded by the US and the West. However, even this almost apparent failure for Ukraine might be rejected by the Putin regime since it falls short of Putin’s objectives. This could be the most challenging part of Trump’s “peace plan.”
On the 18th, the Kremlin rejected the peace plan proposed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for Ukraine, calling it “unacceptable.” Erdogan’s plan included Ukraine staying out of NATO for at least ten years, freezing the current front lines, supplying weapons to Ukraine, and deploying international forces to the non-military buffer zone in eastern Ukraine. Many also find it unacceptable to pressure Ukraine to quickly end the war at the cost of territorial concessions.
Erdogan’s proposal is incomplete, lacking the crucial parts to implement it, and Erdogan lacks the ability and resources to involve both Russia and Ukraine in the plan, with not enough influence to affect a wise decision by the Kremlin.
In the over a month remaining before Trump takes office, many unexpected events may occur, potentially affecting the smooth implementation of Trump’s “peace plan.” However, it is certain that if Putin continues to persist with his war policy, he will face significant military pressure. Putin may realize that the consequences of a breakdown in talks with Trump could be unbearable for Russia, and the US and NATO may intervene in the Ukraine conflict with unprecedented force. Russia, already exhausted after three years of a massive war, may not withstand the final blow, leading to Ukraine’s success.