Trump Needs to Establish Peace in Ukraine on America’s Terms, Not Putin’s

An end to the conflict in Ukraine that prioritizes American interests must achieve more than merely halting hostilities; it should restore U.S. credibility, showcase American dominance and fortitude, and guarantee that Russia will not threaten Ukraine or its NATO allies in the foreseeable future.

This resolution must bolster America’s capability to deter adversaries like China, North Korea, and Iran.

It must be a peace that is distinctly American.

The impediment to such peace is Vladimir Putin, a longstanding obstacle for over a decade.

In 2014, he invaded Ukraine to impose control over a sovereign nation he believed should belong to Russia.

When his initial invasion faltered, he turned to negotiations, taking advantage of the West’s eagerness to seek an end to violence. The Minsk II agreement heavily favored Russia, yet Putin remained dissatisfied.

Bolstered by President Biden’s chaotic exit from Afghanistan, Putin invaded again in 2022, aiming to fully subjugate Ukraine. Thus far, he has met with limited success once again.

Now, he seeks to manipulate negotiations to impose his will on Donald Trump, Ukraine, and Europe.

Since 2021, Putin has articulated his demands repeatedly, contending that Ukraine must not possess an independent statehood or identity — that it is an integral part of Russia.

His ultimatum justifying the ongoing invasion stipulated regime change in Kyiv, demilitarization of Ukraine, and its perpetual neutrality, as well as the retraction of NATO to its 1997 boundaries, alongside restrictions on U.S. actions within that diminished NATO.

Since then, Putin’s prerequisites have escalated, now encompassing the recognition of Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions — including territories that Ukrainian forces continue to control and that the Russian military never successfully captured.

Putin’s vision for peace resembles a Versailles-style resolution that would incapacitate the Ukrainian military against potential future Russian aggression.

He is also intent on imposing terms on Trump regarding the negotiations.

Putin dismisses discussions with Ukraine, deeming its government illegitimate (and denying its right to exist), instead demanding negotiations solely with the United States.

While he claims he will negotiate without “preconditions,” he insists on beginning talks with his stated demands, without any concessions from Russia.

These conditions reflect not only his desire for a favorable agreement in Ukraine, but also an attempt to compel Trump to acknowledge him as an equal and Russia as the successor to the Soviet Union’s stature in global power.

They are designed to instill the perception that Trump is capitulating for a peace agreement that Putin may grant, a blatant power maneuver aimed at diminishing the United States.

The forthcoming Trump administration must reject such indignity and the unfavorable peace that could only result from negotiations under these terms.

Putin’s confidence stems from his belief that he is achieving military success. The Biden administration, preoccupied with avoiding escalations and providing “off-ramps,” has inadvertently reinforced this belief — failing to recognize that its lack of resolve has encouraged Putin’s relentless pursuit of total victory.

In the U.S., discussions regarding how much territory Ukraine should relinquish overlook the reality that Putin has always sought more than mere land.

Those who argue that NATO expansion triggered the 2022 invasion neglect Putin’s own assertions that Biden assured Ukraine would not be admitted into the alliance for at least a decade.

These arguments wrongly cast Ukraine as the culprit, proposing preemptive concessions as a solution.

Ukraine has publicly accepted that it cannot reclaim all its territory through military force — yet Putin’s demands have only intensified.

It is time to clearly acknowledge that Putin is the core issue.

The Trump administration should concentrate on asserting its will over Putin and thwarting his attempts to dictate terms to Washington.

It ought to dismiss Putin’s demands for negotiations on his conditions, instead advocating for discussions led by the U.S. and its allies between Russia and Ukraine as sovereign nations.

The administration should reject Putin’s calls for Ukraine to relinquish territory it currently occupies and enforce that he returns the lands necessary for Ukraine’s future defense.

It should affirm Ukraine’s right to sovereignty and the ability to maintain armed forces of its choosing to deter any future Russian incursions.

Moreover, it should safeguard America’s right to form alliances at our discretion, either via bilateral agreements or NATO membership.

Americans are entitled to determine the commitments we make to Ukraine or any other nation, but the United States must not permit Putin or anyone else to dictate what we can or cannot pursue.

Pressuring Putin to negotiate on Trump’s terms will necessitate making him recognize that he cannot achieve a military triumph — and that the United States will not forsake Ukraine as Biden did with Afghanistan.

This will call for creative strategies to sustain and even augment military aid to Ukraine without placing additional financial burdens on American taxpayers — and indeed, there exist methods to accomplish this.

It will demand patience and resolve to compel Putin to be the one seeking peace.

That is how President Trump can achieve a genuine resolution that concludes this conflict on his terms — and how the United States can demonstrate its renewed strength, credibility, and dominance on the international stage.

Frederick W. Kagan is a resident fellow and director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute.