The prospect of a war between Russia and Ukraine is facing a major turning point with Trump’s victory. In contrast to the Biden administration’s emphasis on supporting Ukraine with billions of dollars but without any established roadmap to end the war, President-elect Trump pledged that the U.S. would take decisive action to end this nearly three-year-long, complex, brutal, and highly destructive full-scale war in the shortest time possible. This also presents an opportunity for Trump to seize a historic moment, demonstrate global leadership, and achieve sustainable peace.
On November 7th, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker told the media that “peace through strength” is a consistent message and the exact message that President Trump intends to convey. Volker believed that Trump would insist on achieving peace. If Russia cannot end the war in Ukraine through diplomatic channels, it will pay a hefty price.
On the same day, Ukrainian President Zelensky, after the European political community Budapest Summit, said he was still uncertain about how Trump would fulfill his promise to end the war within 24 hours. He stated, “Today I believe that President Trump does want to resolve problems quickly, but that does not mean it will happen.” Zelensky praised Trump for his policy of implementing “peace through strength” to fairly end the war.
Russian President Putin, while congratulating Trump on his election victory, stated that his government is “ready” to negotiate with Trump. He believes that the statements made by Trump during the campaign to “win votes” do not indicate what he will do after taking office in January next year. However, he said, “I believe that improving relations with Russia to contribute to ending the Ukrainian crisis is worth noting.”
Unlike the cautious approach of the Biden administration in only supplying weapons to Ukraine, Trump has pledged from the beginning to end this war, although the specifics of his plans remain a mystery. The Biden administration has vowed to help Ukraine defeat Russia. So far, over $61 billion in military aid has been provided to Kyiv, including advanced air defense systems, artillery, millions of rounds of ammunition, hundreds of armored vehicles, and more. The Biden administration has not presented an established roadmap or any specific methods to end the war in Ukraine.
During the campaign, Trump repeatedly stated that if he were to become president, he would end the war in Ukraine within “24 hours,” but did not disclose how this would be achieved. In September of this year, Trump said, “When it comes to stopping Ukraine and Russia, I have a very strict plan. But I can’t give you these plans because if I give you these plans, I won’t be able to use them.”
People around Trump have told the media that anyone claiming to understand Trump’s Ukraine plan or having any opinions on it, no matter how high their position in Trump’s circle, may not actually know what they are talking about. What actions Trump plans to take, including how to bring Zelensky and Putin to the negotiation table, are unknown to the public.
In terms of ending the war, Kyiv aims to regain all occupied territories, including Crimea, hold Moscow accountable for war crimes, and join NATO and the EU. Moscow, on the other hand, seeks to control all of Ukraine while maintaining the currently occupied territories. So far, Kyiv and Moscow have not changed their respective goals of ending this war. It shows the immense difficulty for any plan of Trump’s to bridge the vast gap between Ukraine and Russia.
On October 17th, Zelensky presented his “Victory Plan” at the EU Summit, including Ukraine’s accession to NATO; strengthening Ukraine’s defense, permitting the use of long-range weapons provided by allies on Russian territory and conducting military operations, avoiding the creation of a “buffer zone” in Ukraine; deploying non-nuclear strategic deterrent forces on Ukrainian territory to contain Russia; the U.S. and the EU protecting critical natural resources in Ukraine and jointly utilizing its economic potential. He mentioned three “appendices” that are currently not for public disclosure.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated on Telegram on November 7th that although Putin is willing to have direct talks with Trump, the Russian leader will not take the first step.
Putin’s aides believe there is not much change in the wind direction. Russian lawmaker Evgeny Popov thinks that Russia will reject any agreements Trump may offer before January next year, even agreements that might intentionally disadvantage Ukraine. He stated that in the typical Trump way, he might announce unprecedented aid plans for the Zelensky regime and lift all restrictions on missiles. However, apart from prolonging the “settlement” process, it will not change anything.
If the words of this Russian lawmaker reflect the Kremlin’s attitude, it seems unlikely that any efforts by President Trump will currently be able to end this war through diplomatic means unless one side faces a complete military defeat.
So, does Trump have a chance to find a strong, viable peace route that does not compromise Ukrainian sovereignty? It seems that the options available to Trump to achieve stable peace are very narrow. At the very least, any attempts to persuade either party to compromise are likely to be ineffective.
Some have suggested a freeze in the current frontlines, akin to how President Eisenhower ended the Korean War, and proposed establishing a non-military zone with European allies such as Poland, Germany, the UK, and France, and banning Ukraine from joining NATO within 20 years.
This would require significant concessions from Ukraine. Even Russia might not accept such a proposal, as per the statement by the Russian lawmaker Popov, who said that even agreements intentionally unfavorable to Ukraine would be rejected because it does not align with Moscow’s goals. This would be even less acceptable to Ukraine. They will not forget that in 1994, Ukraine handed over the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal inherited from the Soviet Union to Russia based on the Budapest Memorandum. In exchange, the U.S., the UK, and Russia were to provide “assurances” for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, the present reality shows unenforceable “assurances” are not only worthless but also very dangerous.
Another historical lesson worth considering is how President Reagan in the 1980s used a combination of force and diplomacy to defend core American values and force concessions from the Kremlin. Reagan emphasized achieving peace based on strength, demonstrating that real peace comes from steadfast commitment to challenging Soviet overreach, not from compromise and acquiescence.
The Trump team has stated that the peace plan will not come at the expense of Ukraine’s interests, and the U.S. may continue to provide military support to help Ukraine deter further Russian aggression, following the policy of “peace through strength.” While this aid may no longer be unconditional, it could be more targeted, timely, and unrestricted. This military assistance will play a crucial role in ending the Russia-Ukraine war and helping Ukraine achieve sustainable peace.
This will not be a hasty agreement but a enduring solution that stands the test of time. If the Kremlin wants to continue fighting, they may get their “wish,” but certainly not the results they desire.