Four Strategies President Trump Can Employ to Foster Peace in Ukraine

As Ukraine finds itself in the fourth year of resistance against a full-scale invasion by Russia, there’s a palpable sense of change — a hope that 2025 could signal an end to hostilities, even as worries linger over the potential costs of an unfair peace.

Presently, Russia is experiencing its most significant vulnerabilities since February 2022: economically, militarily, and politically. With rampant inflation, interest rates soaring to an astounding 21%, and a shortage of both military personnel and civilian labor, the state budget is deeply in the red. Lacking access to international financial markets, Russia is depleting its foreign exchange reserves and increasingly relying on allies like North Korea for troops and ammunition, and Iran for drones.

In the coming six months to a year, Russia will likely need a breather in the conflict. Until then, there is no sign of a cessation in the Kremlin’s relentless bombing campaigns and front-line offensives.

Ukraine, too, is feeling the toll of war. The populace is weary. Although the casualty ratio is approximately 3:1 in favor of Ukraine, each Ukrainian life is valued significantly more than the status of many Russian soldiers. The front lines have seen minimal movement in two years, but the toll on Ukraine has been severe.

Now, President Trump is stirring the pot. His aim is to end the conflict rapidly — a goal that Ukraine shares — but there are fears that any resultant terms may favor Russia disproportionately.

Trump has pledged to lower global energy prices and impose sanctions if Russia does not cease its aggression, yet he has simultaneously obstructed UN declarations labeling Russia as an aggressor, labeled President Volodymyr Zelensky as a dictator, and threatened to withdraw military support unless Zelensky shares 50% of Ukraine’s natural resource revenues with the U.S.

He has further alienated European allies while expecting them to increase their contributions to security in Europe — and for Ukraine.

The next few weeks will be crucial in determining the shape of any potential peace in Ukraine. Unfortunately, it may be that once again, an unjust conflict results in an uneasy truce.

This time, however, it is vital for Ukraine and the West to utilize the reprieve a cease-fire offers more effectively than Russia.

Russia will undoubtedly exploit a cease-fire to regroup, rearm, engage in hybrid warfare, and prepare for further full-scale invasions. It is essential for Ukraine and its Western allies to strengthen Ukraine’s military capabilities, rebuild its economy, provide credible security assurances, and accelerate Ukraine’s integration into the EU and NATO. This strategy will act as a deterrent against any additional aggression from President Vladimir Putin. Failing to do so would allow him to scheme new assaults against Ukraine and perhaps other European nations without facing any consequences.

Strategic Framework

In spite of the chaos surrounding the various policy statements from the Trump administration, the core elements of his strategy appear to be quite clear. They involve: cease-fire, reciprocity, deterrence, and burden-sharing.

Achieving a cease-fire stands as Trump’s primary objective. His desire to stop the bloodshed is commendable, yet he refuses to acknowledge that the root cause of the violence is Putin’s imperialistic and genocidal aspirations. Were it not for Russia’s intent to conquer Ukraine and erase its historical and cultural identity, there would be no war.

The second element is reciprocity. Trump perceives that American taxpayers have contributed at least $100 billion in aid to Ukraine, yielding no clear strategic results, and he believes the U.S. deserves something in return. He aims to establish frameworks that ensure America is compensated for past assistance and will receive payment in real-time for future military support based on Ukraine’s potential resource revenues.

This approach would place U.S. military assistance for Ukraine on a more sustainable, business-like basis. While it may seem heartless from a humanitarian perspective, it is politically more tenable.

The third element is deterrence. Despite his desire for a swift resolution to the conflict, Trump is also interested in preventing future wars that might tarnish his image as a peacemaker worthy of a Nobel Prize.

This would entail demonstrating sufficient capacity to discourage Putin from launching further hostilities. In the short term, this should not pose a significant challenge, given the existing strains on Russia’s economy and military. However, in the medium to long term, it will necessitate a robust commitment from the West to ensure that Putin understands future conflicts will be both costly and ultimately ineffective.

Rebalanced Alliance

Finally, the fourth element revolves around burden-sharing. Trump has long believed that European allies have relied on America to bear the expense of securing Europe.

He seeks to significantly adjust the balance of responsibilities within the Atlantic Alliance by pushing European partners to allocate 5% of their GDP to defense while reducing the U.S. defense budget. This may involve Europe taking the lead on providing security assurances for Ukraine and possibly deploying a deterrent force in Ukraine to train and equip its military and assist with air defense.

If these four pillars do not align, Trump may very well consider sidelining Ukraine. However, if they do align — cease-fire, reciprocity, deterrence, and burden-sharing — it would meet Trump’s policy goals while simultaneously safeguarding Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, and long-term security.

This, in turn, would provide Ukraine with time that extends beyond the next four years.

Kurt Volker is a former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and a former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations. Currently, he is a Distinguished Fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis. This article was initially published by the Center for European Policy Analysis.