We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Key Points and Summary: President-elect Donald Trump has promised to bring peace to Ukraine, but achieving a durable resolution requires addressing the root causes of the conflict rather than opting for temporary ceasefires.

-Historical failures, such as the Minsk agreements, underscore Russia’s imperial ambitions to subjugate Ukraine and counter its move toward European integration. As Russia’s economy and military face significant strain, a short-term truce could allow Moscow to regroup for future aggression.

How to Get Real Peace for Ukraine: To secure lasting peace, Trump must strengthen Ukraine’s position through robust sanctions, advanced weaponry, and strategic diplomacy to weaken Russia’s resolve. Anything less risks repeating past mistakes.

Hard Decisions Await Trump to Achieve Lasting Peace in Ukraine

President-elect Donald Trump said throughout his campaign he could facilitate peace in Ukraine. Still, much depends on whether the goal is a short-term ceasefire or a lasting, durable peace. As Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently remarked in a podcast with Lex Fridman, it feels as though we are reliving 2019, revisiting discussions around the Minsk agreements, and attempting to broker yet another ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. However, history teaches us that meaningful and lasting peace can only be achieved by addressing the root causes of the conflict rather than relying on temporary agreements or appeasing power-hungry dictators.

Earlier Negotiations

The earlier Minsk agreements failed to secure peace between Russia and Ukraine because they were never genuinely about resolving the conflict—they were about Russia’s attempts to subjugate and dominate Ukraine. When Russian President Vladimir Putin realized that his attempts to strong-arm Ukraine through economic and political pressure were failing, he resorted to military force as a means to dominate the country in 2022. 

Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, where Ukrainians rose up to demand freedom and democracy, was a turning point for Putin. He viewed Ukraine’s push toward European integration and prosperity as a direct threat to his authoritarian rule in Russia. If Ukraine were to succeed in building a thriving democracy aligned with Europe, it could inspire Russians to demand the same freedoms and potentially rise up to challenge Putin’s grip on power. For Putin, Ukraine’s independence is a direct threat to his rule.

Russia’s ambition to dominate Ukraine predates Putin’s leadership and reflects a broader pattern of imperialist tendencies, no matter the time period. When Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, even Russia’s first democratically elected president, Boris Yeltsin, reportedly considered a nuclear strike against Ukraine. By 1994, Russia had already attempted an operation to occupy Crimea, setting the stage for future confrontations. 

In 2003, the Tuzla Island standoff highlighted Russia’s continued willingness to challenge Ukraine’s sovereignty, as Moscow provoked a territorial dispute in the Kerch Strait. After Ukrainians pushed for closer ties with the European Union in 2013, Putin escalated from economic influence to outright military aggression, marking the beginning of Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine and the West. The very existence of a free and prosperous Ukraine poses an existential threat to Russia’s imperial ambitions, whether under Putin or any other member of the Kremlin elite.

On the battlefield, while Russia suffers catastrophic losses, Putin frames the war in terms reminiscent of the Great Patriotic War, rallying domestic support. Russia has transitioned its economy to a wartime footing. It is preparing for a protracted conflict—not only to attempt the conquest of Ukraine but also to position itself for a potential future war with NATO. As the war in Ukraine grinds into a war of attrition, the dynamics favor Russia, which treats its men as expendable resources in pursuit of its goals.

Soldiers, with team Deadpool, B Battery, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, Division Artillery, 1st Armored Division, fire a M777 Howitzer, during the Two Gun Raid September 20 at Oro Grande Range Complex, N.M. 2-3 FA conducts the Two Gun Raid and table VI qualification annually. (U.S. Army Photo by Sgt. Michael Eaddy). This is similar to the artillery engaged in Ukraine.

Russia is especially vulnerable at this moment. Its economy is overheated, inflation is surging, and the central bank is scrambling to prevent the ruble from collapsing. The economic pressure on Russia is palpable. Additionally, Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk exposed Russia’s fragility to the West and showed the significant strain Russia is facing on the battlefield.

NATO Considerations in the Ukraine War

If push comes to shove, Russia might consider a short-term ceasefire, as it has done in the past, to consolidate its hold on parts of Ukraine while buying time to regroup and prepare for a renewed offensive to take all of Ukraine.

If Putin’s primary concern had been preventing Ukraine from joining NATO, he could have secured that concession during peace talks in early 2022, when Kyiv was prepared to renounce its NATO ambitions, among other concessions. Instead, Putin pursued maximalist goals aimed at conquering all of Ukraine. The war was never truly about NATO but about reviving an imperialist Russia that is fixated on subjugating Ukraine to make the Russian empire “great again.”

Trump’s National Security Advisor nominee, Mike Waltz, previously suggested that the Russo-Ukrainian war could end if the United States applies the proper leverage. According to Waltz, this leverage involves ensuring that Russia’s “war machine dries up very quickly” through robust U.S. economic sanctions, coupled with “removing the handcuffs” on the long-range weapons supplied to Ukraine. Until much greater leverage is applied against Russia, Putin is unlikely to approach the negotiating table with a desire for a lasting peace. 

Trump’s team would do well to heed the words of John Sullivan, former U.S. ambassador to Moscow: “Their negotiating style is maximalist demands, surrender nothing, paranoia to the nth degree.”

US Military M777 Artillery. Ukraine Now Has a Similar System.

US Military M777 Artillery. Ukraine Now Has a Similar System.

Suppose Trump is sincere about achieving lasting peace. In that case, he must prioritize putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position to negotiate while weakening Russia to the point where peace talks become its only viable option. While Trump could indeed broker peace in Ukraine, it would require making some tough and strategic decisions—otherwise, a fragile agreement risks leaving Ukraine vulnerable to future Russian aggression. 

About the Author: 

David Kirichenko is a freelance journalist and an associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, a London-based think tank. He can be found on X @DVKirichenko.