November 2024 brought unprecedented events in the Russia-Ukraine war. For the first time, thousands of North Korean army soldiers joined the war on Russia’s side. For the first time, Russia launched an intercontinental ballistic missile, the nuclear-capable Oreshnik, targeting the Ukrainian metropolis of Dnipro. 

Both events signify a clear escalation of the war by Russia. While Ukraine’s allies evaluate every step to “avoid escalation,” Russia counters with two provocative steps of its own, testing the West’s resolve and raising the stakes when faced with no or little responses.

“I will end all wars,” said Donald Trump at his first press conference as president-elect. It is a promise many Ukrainians received with hope. But how? Trump has yet to outline his plans publicly.

Negotiation Scenarios

Based on discussions with my American colleagues, there’s likely no final unified strategy shared by the Republican Party at this time. Two scenarios are being debated regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, and they are diametrically opposed. The first involves increasing military support for Ukraine, thereby strengthening its negotiating position.

The second scenario entails a complete cessation of military aid. Proponents of this approach believe it would force Ukraine into negotiations and territorial compromises. However, this scenario should rightly be labeled “Russia’s scenario” as it allows the aggressor to achieve its objectives and evade responsibility for its actions. Fortunately, many in the Republican Party recognize these risks and understand that a Russian victory is not aligned with U.S. interests.

Historically, the Republican Party has often pursued a stricter policy toward Russia than the Democrats. Predicting the actions of a new U.S. administration is challenging as pressuring Ukraine into concessions could embolden other authoritarian regimes. This is clear for stakeholders in both Kyiv and Washington.

The significant geopolitical importance of U.S. aid to Ukraine has been narrowed by Russian lobbyists into a debate about “American taxpayer money.” They aim to steer U.S. politicians toward prioritizing domestic issues while ignoring the fact that most of the funds for military assistance remain within the U.S. economy in the form of contracts for American defense manufacturers.

At the same time, Russia has been forging new military alliances and expanding its geopolitical influence. Over the past few years, Russia has deepened military partnerships with Iran and North Korea while strengthening ties with China. The Russian government has spent billions on dis- and misinformation campaigns and bribing politicians in the West, urging democratic countries to focus on social issues while saving on global security, including aid to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russia continues to reshape the world’s political map.

The Flaws in Peace Plans

Regarding potential Russia-Ukraine negotiations, I do not expect quick results. Since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia has participated in more than 200 rounds of negotiations and violated every agreement it signed, including more than twenty ceasefire agreements. This is a crucial factor to consider when discussing potential peace plans with Russia now. Reliable guarantees and guarantors are needed to ensure that any agreements are upheld.

In June 2024, Ukraine initiated the First Global Peace Summit in Switzerland, gathering delegations from 101 countries to discuss President Zelensky’s Peace Formula. The summit’s final document endorsed key points, including nuclear and food security, prisoner-of-war exchanges, and the return of kidnapped children. While the summit initiated a global dialogue on peace, Russia, which did not participate, predictably responded with aggression.

Just two weeks after the summit in Switzerland, a Chinese-Brazilian “peace” plan emerged that proposed freezing hostilities. The plan included no reference to the territorial integrity of nations. Moreover, its language failed to identify who was the aggressor and who was the victim in this “crisis.” Under this plan, Russia would gain everything it desires, while Europe would be left with a frozen conflict far from Brazil’s and China’s borders. A “quick peace” would transform into a perpetual nightmare. Naturally, Ukraine rejected such proposals.

In recent months, numerous variants of peace plans and scenarios have surfaced in the media. These proposals often boil down to discussions about which Ukrainian territories should be forfeited and what concessions should be made to appease Russia. None of these “peace plans” address punishing the aggressor or creating mechanisms to deter Russia in the future. In my view, these are the key questions that must be answered to end the war.

Deterring the Aggressor …

Ukraine earnestly seeks to end the war, not just secure a pause. But it is vital that this war be concluded justly. Any frozen conflict without adequate security guarantees from powerful global players or accountability for the aggressor would merely provide an operational pause in hostilities.

If a peace plan fails to include tools to prevent future Russian aggression, the war could reignite with greater ferocity in a few years, as it did in 2022 following years of attempts to end the conflict Russia began in 2014.

Crafting such a peace plan and response measures requires strong leadership and concrete security guarantees that would render any potential new Russian offensive futile. Ukraine’s NATO membership could be the most effective deterrent against Russia. Yet many peace plan concepts propose delaying or compromising on this point.

… For Global Security

The more that Russia’s demands are met during negotiations, the more it will embolden Moscow to continue its aggression against neighbors. Of these neighbors, only NATO countries remain still untouched by Russia’s actions. In such a case, the next targets could be Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, or Poland.

As a global leader, the United States has the capacity to redirect Putin’s militaristic agenda. The world could focus on addressing economic challenges, but to do so, Putin must be subdued. This is not just about Ukraine but global stability. The U.S. is stronger than Russia and has the tools to contain it. Donald Trump has the ability to act. The best deal would prevent another war and restore global security stability.