Updated December 24, 2024 at 4:15 p.m.*
-Analysis-
PARIS — Remember Donald Trump boasting he could end the war in Ukraine in “24 hours?” Life is more complicated than campaign slogans, even for Trump. Nevertheless, the election of the billionaire, reluctant to continue supporting Ukraine, has shifted the dynamics. Ukraine realized it might be abandoned, as suggested by a crude tweet from the president-elect’s son, likening aid to an attacked country to “pocket money” for Volodymyr Zelensky.
Since then, Europeans have urged the incoming administration to consider the implications for the credibility of American leadership if Putin were to declare victory in Ukraine. The highlight of this pragmatic appeal was the unexpected meeting last Friday at the French presidential palace Élysée between Trump and Zelensky.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
Without any dramatic announcements coming out since, the terms of the equation continue to shift. Under the “Trump effect,” the focus has moved from territorial issues to security concerns.
Until now, Ukraine had made the full restoration of its sovereignty a non-negotiable condition for ending the war. However, the shift in the balance of power on the ground, now favoring Russia, has made this outcome not impossible but distant and costly — both in Ukrainian lives and in continued Western economic support.
Ukraine’s sacrifice
In the meantime, a “German scenario” is being discussed: the two Germanys were divided for four decades but are now united. History, we are reminded, never truly ends.
If Ukraine makes a territorial sacrifice, which will be hard to accept after so many deaths, it demands real security guarantees to prevent the war from resuming as soon as the West turns its back.
It was a deceptive deal, as we know today.
What could these guarantees look like? It must be different than what has been done already. In 1994, the Budapest Memorandum was signed, supported by the permanent members of the Security Council, guaranteeing Ukraine against any unprovoked military threat. In exchange, Ukraine gave up the nuclear arsenal on its soil at the time of the Soviet Union’s dissolution.
I remember going to Kyiv to follow a visit of Roland Dumas, the French foreign minister at the time, who went to convince Ukrainians to accept it. It was a deceptive deal, as we know today.
NATO’s role
Ukraine’s membership in NATO would obviously be the supreme guarantee with its “Article 5” that calls for the members to defend any country facing military aggression.
The fact that European leaders are discussing it is already progress.
But Putin will never accept Ukraine in NATO, and Trump is also not likely to consent either. A sentiment echoed recently by Robert Fico, prime minister of NATO member Slovakia, who reiterated his stance against Ukraine joining the alliance, though acknowledging that Moscow’s invasion was in violation of international law.
“Ukraine won’t be invited to NATO,” Fico said, a week before his controversial meeting Monday with Putin.
A third option is now emerging: the stationing of NATO troops in Ukraine, acting on their own behalf, providing a physical guarantee of the country’s sovereignty defense.
This was the focus of Emmanuel Macron’s recent talks in Warsaw. If such a scenario were to materialize, France and Poland would be among the main countries deploying forces. We’re still far from this solution, but the fact that European leaders are discussing it is already progress, offering Ukrainians a slightly more encouraging prospect than Trump’s 24-hour peace deal, which would solve nothing.
*Originally published December 13, 2024, this article was updated December 24, 2024 with updated declarations from Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico.
