Donald Trump had repeatedly declared this past year that if voters returned him to the White House he would end the war in Ukraine in “one day.” This, for example, was how he put it at a CNN town hall last May: “I know Zelensky well, I know Putin well. I’ll have it all done within 24 hours.”
[shortcode-Subscribe-to-Ukraine-daily-box]
Now that he’s been elected, Trump is no longer talking about “peace in a day,” but remains confident he will end the war. “We will secure PEACH THROUGH STRENGTH, and make America and the world safe again,” the president-elect said in the written announcement nominating General Keith Kellogg as his special envoy for Ukraine.
Kellogg, along with Fred Fleitz, members of the National Security Council during Trump’s first term, presented a Ukraine peace plan to him about six months ago. The plan calls for freezing hostilities along the existing front lines, establishing a demilitarized zone, maintaining Russian control over occupied territories, and keeping Ukraine out of NATO for an “extended period of time,” which the Wall Street Journal reports would be 20 years.
In addition, some sanctions against Russia may be lifted, and a complete removal of restrictions will occur once a peace agreement satisfactory to Kyiv is signed. In return, Ukraine should receive security guarantees, which, according to Fleitz, means “arming Ukraine to the teeth.”
Trump’s peace plans
There is an important detail of the Kellogg-Fleitz plan: Trump intends to pressure both Russia and Ukraine by threatening to change the policy on arms supplies to Kyiv. If Ukraine refuses to negotiate, he promises to halt supplies; if Russia refuses, he will provide the Ukrainian Armed Forces with whatever is needed for victory.
J.D. Vance, the incoming Vice President, envisions Trump telling the Russians, Ukrainians, and Europeans: ‘Guys, you need to decide what the peace agreement will look like.’
The question is what Trump will do if Russia or Ukraine (or both) refuse to negotiate on U.S. terms.
This would likely lead to the establishment of a demarcation line followed by a demilitarized zone with strong fortifications to prevent further Russian attacks. Ukraine would maintain its independence, while Russia would receive guarantees that Ukraine will remain neutral and refrain from joining NATO or any other alliances. This is how Vance sees the end of the conflict.
In addition to the Kellogg-Fleitz proposals, Trump’s future national security adviser Mike Waltz is studying the plan of Richard Grenell, the former U.S. ambassador to Germany. In July, he proposed creating certain “autonomous regions” in Ukraine, without explaining what that means.
The question is what Trump will do if Russia or Ukraine — or both — refuse to negotiate on U.S. terms and are not intimidated by the threats of the American leader.
Will Putin blink?
Vladimir Putin has reasons to refuse a ceasefire on unfavorable terms: the Russian army is advancing and increasing its pace of progress. According to the U.S.-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW), from November 1 to 25, the Russians captured 574 square kilometers— the highest figure, excluding the first weeks of the war.
“Russia must see negotiations as the best alternative to continuing the war,” says military expert Michael Kofman, who recently visited the frontlines. To achieve this, the Ukrainian army needs to stabilize the front line, and the U.S. must convince Russia that support for Ukraine will continue even after Trump takes office.
The idea of pressuring Russia with threats to increase military aid to Ukraine is the most vulnerable aspect of Trump’s plan, believes Yan Veselov, author of the Telegram channel One Big Union. “Trump and the Republicans have spent at least the entire last year delegitimizing the issue of military support for Ukraine, questioning how much longer American taxpayers should be funding it. And if Russia refuses to negotiate, how will they sell the idea of increasing aid to Ukraine to the American public?”
According to The Washington Post, after winning the election, Trump asked Putin in a phone conversation to refrain from escalating the situation on the frontlines (the Russian side officially denied the conversation took place, while the American side did not confirm it). However, shortly after reports of the conversation, escalation occurred: first, the Ukrainian Armed Forces struck with long-range Western weapons, and then Russia used the Oreshnik system.
This cycle of escalation could halt once Trump takes office. By not officially acknowledging the conversation, both sides leave themselves room for maneuver, says Alexander Gabuev ,director of the Carnegie Moscow Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies. “One can always say that Biden started the escalation by authorizing long-range strikes, and that Russia responded — and responded with restraint,” the expert notes.
Trump pressure on Zelensky
Volodymyr Zelensky may also refuse to negotiate on Trump’s terms. In recent weeks, he has changed his position on the return of occupied territories. Whereas he previously stated that the loss of territory was unacceptable even de facto, he now considers it possible to allow Russian control over the occupied part of the country, with the prospect of returning these territories later through diplomatic means.
However, in return, Zelensky wants an invitation to join NATO, and for the territory of Ukraine in Kyiv’s control must be “under NATO’s umbrella.” The issue is that Trump’s plan does not foresee Ukraine’s NATO membership anytime soon.
At the same time, Trump is not interested in leaving Ukraine without American weapons; he understands that in this case, Kyiv would be forced to make a highly disadvantageous deal for itself, a source in the Republican Party told Politico. This would damage Trump’s reputation as a skilled negotiator.
“[European countries] are concerned and aware that Ukraine could be betrayed,” notes former Ukrainian Defense Minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk. “They don’t want that, because they understand the risk of defeat or even significant escalation if Russia starts to quickly advance into other regions of Ukraine. The question is whether Trump wants such consequences, whether he wants to be the person who allows this and bears responsibility for a defeat in the war?”
European countries could thwart Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine, says Yan Veselov, a Russian expert on U.S. diplomacy. “If the Ukrainians refuse to accept the U.S. terms, Europeans, potentially in conflict with the Trump administration over issues like NATO or trade policy, may offer to replace, if not all, then part of the military support. In that case, Trump’s threat would lose much of its effectiveness.”
According to Alexander Gabuev, Trump may not have to pressure Ukraine and Russia to start negotiations. The parties may meet Trump halfway and initiate some kind of negotiation process. The real question is whether they will be able to reach significant agreements. “What matters most is how important it will be for Trump not to demand an immediate ceasefire and freeze the front, but precisely to guarantee security for Ukraine,” the expert says.
A NATO substitute
Volodymyr Zelensky sees this is a non-starter. “If the conflict is frozen without any strong position for Ukraine, then Putin will come back in two, three, or five years,” he said. “This does not depend on us, he will come back and completely destroy us.”
For the Ukrainian leader, a strong position means Ukraine’s invitation to NATO, something the United States is not yet prepared to offer. But Trump has not provided any other security guarantees so far.
“So far, there have been no promises of any military agreements that could serve as an alternative to NATO membership,” says Veselov. “Under the Biden administration, both options were developed — NATO membership and bilateral defense treaties between Ukraine and other countries, a sort of NATO substitute. But from Trump’s side, we see no proposals.”
Alexander Gabuev imagines another possible scenario: “Trump could tell Putin: ‘Let’s just end the war, I won’t give Ukraine any security guarantees, and I’m ready to cut military aid. Just promise me you won’t attack again … This is something Putin could accept.”
At the negotiations, Gabuev believes that Putin will seek an agreement that would enable Russia to rearm, expand its army, and eventually launch another attack on Ukraine. If Trump agrees to this, he could easily apply the leverage he mentions: reducing weapons supplies, stopping intelligence-sharing with Ukraine and its allies, and so on.
On the other hand, Trump could dig in his heels and tell Putin that he needs serious security guarantees for Ukraine: for example, bilateral agreements, the deployment of peacekeepers, or long-term investments in Ukraine’s program for developing long-range weapons. “In that case, his leverage would be to escalate, providing Ukraine with more weapons, including Tomahawks and much more,” continues Gabuev. “This opens the door for escalation from Russia, and we don’t know if Trump is willing to go down that path. But in theory, such options are on the table.”
The “unpredictability” card
Ultimately, Trump’s strongest asset is his unpredictability. In the 1960s, under President Richard Nixon, the United States had a foreign policy doctrine known as the “Madman Theory.” The idea was that all countries, especially U.S.adversaries, should believe that a madman occupied the White House — someone who could do anything, including the most extreme form of escalation, such as nuclear war.
The fear of this unpredictability, in turn, would lead other nations to act in a more predictable way.
In the case of Trump, we’re seeing a sort of reincarnation of this approach, says Veselov. “On one hand, he says he’s ready to negotiate with anyone, but on the other, he drops hints that “if necessary” the U.S. could bomb Moscow,” he said. “I think this is a deliberate strategy—to demonstrate that the U.S. is open to a full spectrum of responses.”
