As Trump's inauguration approaches, international analysts and politicians are now considering scenarios for ending the war in Ukraine. Many focus on the political rather than the military component. However, if the diplomatic process begins, its participants will defend positions based on the situation at the front, Politico notes.
It is clear that the new White House administration will make the cessation of hostilities one of its priorities. But will Washington have serious leverage over moscow? The author is convinced that it is the military reality that will determine russia's compliance and willingness to compromise. Thus, whatever the expectations of the Trump administration, both the United States and especially Europe should be interested in strengthening the resources of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Otherwise, the talks will turn from a constructive conversation into a platform for putin to issue ultimatums.
For his part, in a recent interview with an American podcaster, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Kyiv's security guarantees to end the war with russia would be effective only if provided by the United States. He noted that Ukrainians expect Trump to force moscow to end the war and that russia will escalate in Europe if Washington withdraws from the NATO military alliance. This was reported by Reuters.
From russia's point of view, all it needs to do is continue the war and wait for Western funding for Ukraine to eventually dry up. In Foreign Policy, the author notes that even if the Trump administration significantly limits aid to Ukraine, the $300 billion in frozen assets could replace US spending for about six to seven years.
The immediate question is what follows the ceasefire. Here, Europe faces two options: commit to defending the ceasefire by force if necessary, or risk a more violent conflict in the coming years, which may not be limited to Ukraine.
In an article by Foreign Policy, the author argues that without a significant Western military presence in Ukraine, any security guarantees are likely to be ignored by russia. However, in order for European troops to ensure a ceasefire, the following factors need to be addressed:
First, given the general lack of preparedness, European troops will need at least several months to train and receive instructions from Ukrainian officers. Second, Europe will need a clear exit strategy. The forces will not be permanent. Third, U.S. support will be absolutely essential, even if Washington refuses to provide troops. This includes assistance with mission planning, logistics, intelligence, and additional firepower.
For my part, I am convinced that only when russia realises that it will no longer be able to win significant victories in the future will it consider negotiations. We can reach this point by increasing pressure on russia through increased arms supplies to Ukraine to improve our country's bargaining power and force moscow to make concessions on fair terms.
Trump’s designated envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, has suggested that Russia’s rejection of peace would trigger a significant uptick in military support for Ukraine.
Were the Trump administration to significantly curtail assistance to Ukraine, the $300 billion in frozen assets would be able to replace U.S. expenditures for roughly six or seven years. Until now, European and U.S. leaders have been reluctant to tap this resource. The closest that they have come was a decision by the G-7 countries to use the interest generated by these hard currency reserves as collateral for $50 billion in loans to Ukraine.
The pressing question is what follows a cease-fire. Here, Europe faces two options: commit to defending a cease-fire by force if necessary or risk a more brutal conflict in the coming years that may not be confined to Ukraine.
An honest reckoning is vital. Without a significant Western military presence in Ukraine, any security guarantee to what remains of Ukraine will likely be ignored by Russia. U.S. President-elect Donald Trump and his team have already bowed out of sending U.S. troops, saying this would be Europe’s responsibility. That is why French President Emmanuel Macron has been drumming up support for a European peacekeeping force.
Ukraine’s economy at large has reinvented itself to navigate wartime realities. It remains one-quarter smaller than in 2021. Yet for the first time since 2022, the start of the all-out invasion, it is healthier than its enemy’s in some key respects. Ukraine’s central bank forecasts GDP to grow by 4% in 2024 and 4.3% in 2025. The currency is stable and interest rates, at 13.5%, remain near their lowest in 30 months. Contrast that with Russia, where rates should soon hit 23% to arrest the rouble’s fall, banks look fragile and GDP is set to grow by just 0.5-1.5% in 2025. But Ukraine faces strong headwinds: the uptick of war, the downtick of domestic resources, and Donald Trump. How long can its economy hold out?
French President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday that Ukraine needs to adopt a "realistic" stance on territorial issues as political momentum appears to gather in favor of opening peace talks with Russia.
Macron also said the United States should help bring Russia to the negotiation table, and that Europeans should provide Ukraine with security guarantees as their responsibility.
However, the French president also warned against hoping for a swift resolution of the conflict.
"There won't be a quick solution," he said. "No quick solution that implies the capitulation of Ukraine will be good for Europeans or for the United States."
Therefore, if we really want to stop this war, we can only do it by giving Ukraine a technological and quantitative drone advantage.
However, I must emphasize again: Without parity of forces on the front, there can be no compromise diplomacy. A freeze or a truce isn’t peace. And we shouldn’t be under any illusion that Putin will stop without achieving his goals, should he have the resources and opportunities to do so.
Indeed, if there’s a pause in the war, Russia will use it to accumulate such means and continue its aggression. Thus, the main guarantee of peace cannot be Trump’s “good will” but rather strengthening Ukraine to such an extent the enemy simply wouldn’t dare attack again.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said security guarantees for Kyiv to end Russia's war would only be effective if the United States provides them, and that he hoped to meet U.S. President-elect Donald Trump soon after his inauguration.
In an interview with U.S. podcaster Lex Fridman published on Sunday, Zelenskiy said Ukrainians were counting on Trump to force Moscow to end its war and that Russia would escalate in Europe if Washington were to quit the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military alliance.
Comments