By Artur Koldomasov
Key Takeaways
- Ceasefire and Negotiations: The plan emphasizes diplomacy, aiming to halt hostilities through a ceasefire and peace talks. A significant challenge lies in compelling Russia to negotiate in good faith, as Moscow has shown little interest in altering its aggressive stance without substantial pressure.
- Territorial Concessions: Negotiations may involve compromises on occupied territories, which raises serious concerns about Ukraine’s sovereignty and the potential precedent for further aggression.
- Delayed NATO Membership: Postponing Ukraine’s NATO membership is proposed as a way to ease tensions, but without alternative security measures, it risks leaving Ukraine exposed to future threats.
- Conditional Military Aid: U.S. support would depend on Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate, possibly limiting Kyiv’s leverage in talks.
- Security Guarantees: The plan suggests alternative security arrangements, but their efficacy remains uncertain in the absence of NATO membership.
- Key Variables: The plan’s success depends on clear safeguards against future aggression, robust security frameworks, and balanced international cooperation to prevent destabilization. Overcoming Russia’s resistance to meaningful negotiations will be a critical and complex task requiring coordinated international strategies.
Donald Trump’s victory in this year’s U.S. presidential election has drawn greater attention to his stance on Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, especially considering his statements after February 24, 2022.
Trump has suggested that Ukraine might have to cede territory to Russia to facilitate peace. Reports indicate that he believes both sides want a way out of the conflict and that Ukrainians in occupied territories might be “okay” with being part of Russia. He also expressed support for negotiations that might include halting NATO’s eastward expansion, particularly regarding Ukraine and Georgia. Trump has criticized the Biden administration’s military support for Ukraine, suggesting that aid should be structured as loans that Ukraine would have to repay. However, no definitive plan exists yet, and many of its elements remain in flux, heavily dependent on evolving front-line conditions and broader international dynamics. Some proposals may not be viable, especially if Russia remains uninterested in meaningful negotiations.
Following his victory, both Ukrainian and American officials began discussing what Trump’s “peace plan” might look like and how it could impact Ukraine’s future. What is currently perceived as Trump’s plan was articulated by his new special envoy, Keith Kellogg. While Kellogg emphasized that it is his proposal alone, political analysts across the globe have taken it as a starting point for predicting the potential dynamics of the war and its broader implications. The latest plan for Ukraine, as outlined by Kellogg, appears as follows:
Ceasefire and Negotiations
The plan emphasizes the need for a ceasefire and encourages peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. It proposes freezing the current front lines despite the lack of guarantees that Russia would not repeatedly violate them.
Delayed NATO Membership
A significant aspect of the proposal is postponing Ukraine’s NATO membership for an extended period. This is seen as a way to ease tensions and create a more conducive environment for negotiations. Headlines also suggest removing NATO membership from negotiations entirely or working on a special invitation for Ukraine, wherein only the western part of the country would effectively join the Alliance (the definition of the “western part” remains a subject of debate), though this aspect is rapidly evolving.
Conditional Military Aid
While the U.S. (for now) would continue providing military aid to Ukraine, this support would be contingent upon Ukraine’s willingness to engage in talks with Russia. The Trump administration intends to use military aid as a tool to encourage negotiations. This aid has already faced skepticism from some new members of the U.S. Congress.
Territorial Concessions
Some journalists, citing other members of Trump’s new team, suggest that the plan may include pressuring Ukraine regarding temporarily occupied territories, potentially involving nearly 19% of Ukrainian land. This concession could be part of a broader peace agreement or cessation of hostilities. According to the plan, these territories would not be officially recognized as Russian, but Ukraine’s claims to them would also not be upheld.
There is ongoing debate about the exact scale of territorial concessions—options include using the current front lines, those of February 24, 2022, or those of January 20, 2025. However, such changes are not straightforward, as they are directly tied to the NATO negotiation section, and some radical changes would require constitutional amendments in both Russia and Ukraine, which neither side is keen on.
Security Guarantees
The proposal includes provisions for security guarantees for Ukraine after the war, ensuring that any agreement reached would protect Ukraine from future aggression. However, Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has officially rejected such guarantees if they come at the expense of NATO membership. This creates a legal loophole for all parties involved to keep the option on the table, as Ukraine has already signed bilateral agreements with more than 10 countries, including the U.S., regarding security guarantees and cooperation. Furthermore, to avoid contradicting its rejection, this section could align with NATO membership. However, everything remains subject to change.
Lifting Sanctions
Part of the negotiations might include lifting some sanctions imposed on Russia, provided it cooperates in peace talks. This approach aims to reintegrate Russia into the international community, even though it runs counter to the efforts of the Yermak-McFaul Group—a working group under the Ukrainian President’s Office tasked with identifying new Russian vulnerabilities to expanding and strengthening sanctions against it until Moscow stops its aggression. Working since March 2022, the group has made significant contributions to the global sanctions regime against Russia. It has formulated detailed action plans and roadmaps recommending sanctions across various sectors, including energy, finance, and technology. These documents have guided international policymakers in implementing effective economic restrictions.
However, the dynamics and scale of sanctions lifting might vary significantly depending on the rhetoric and actions of Russia, which is known for its provocations and daring actions despite international condemnation. Throughout the war, Russia repeatedly massively shelled Ukraine and its civilian cities in response to certain developments on the frontline, as well as resorted to creating environmental disasters and other displays of force.
Similar actions during the negotiation process may provoke a backlash, and in such a case, countermeasures are possible, such as strengthening sanctions on those sources of Russian income that currently remain outside the sanctions framework (for example, the export of Russian liquefied natural gas, more than 50% of which is directed to EU countries).
European Troop Monitoring
Trump has expressed interest in having European troops monitor a potential ceasefire, pointing to the need for European nations to play a more active role in ensuring regional stability. However, the final implementation of this idea depends on the political will of European countries—French President Macron’s recent visit to Poland was reportedly aimed at convincing Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk to send Polish soldiers as part of European peacekeeping forces to Ukraine, but this idea was apparently rejected for now. At the same time, discussions about this move have been circulating in European political circles since the summer. Nevertheless, as with the NATO membership clause, there are no precise details about the operational area of peacekeeping forces should this idea be implemented, except that it would be the “Western territory” of Ukraine, which carries various implications.
The deployment of foreign troops to Ukraine’s “western” regions raises significant concerns, particularly if these troops are perceived as legitimate targets by Russia. Whether such attacks occur on the frontlines or in the rear areas, the risk remains the same: an escalation of insecurity that could deter investment and destabilize the region economically. Unlike NATO’s Article 5, which explicitly guarantees collective defense, the ambiguous role of these troops creates uncertainty about the West’s response to any attacks against them. Will they merely serve as a symbolic presence, or will their mandate include robust defensive measures?
The economic stability and attractiveness of Ukraine’s “western” regions for investors depend heavily on a secure and predictable environment. This is especially true for economic recovery and growth, which are integral to Ukraine’s broader soft security framework. If stationed troops are attacked, regardless of their location, the implications for the regional economy are severe. Without clear strategies to address such scenarios, their presence risks becoming a liability rather than a stabilizing factor, undermining public trust in Western commitments.
Considering the history of controversial situations involving peacekeeping forces in other armed conflicts, there is a significant risk that their behavior in this particular case would be challenging to control. This could potentially cause greater trauma in Ukrainian society and undermine trust in the West as a whole, eventually drawing Ukrainians closer to Russia or to overly radicalized sentiments without much effort from the Kremlin.
Scenarios for Ukraine’s Future Following This Peace Plan
Another important question is what will happen in Ukraine after implementing any version of this peace plan. While the situation is quite unstable and unpredictable, making it almost impossible to determine with certainty what might happen and what impact it could have, certain trends are observed.
Positive Scenario
A comprehensive peace agreement with solid protections against future Russian aggression could lead to Ukraine receiving an invitation to NATO. This would facilitate reforms in the military sector and enhance social cohesion. The U.S. could also use the deployment of long-range missiles in Ukraine as a deterrent against Russia. Stronger integration of Ukraine into the European security architecture, with the potential deployment of non-combat forces by European states, would support the country’s stability. Moreover, incorporating Ukraine into NATO would make it easier for the West to influence and manage an armed, well-trained, and increasingly anti-Russian Ukraine, ensuring alignment with broader Western strategic objectives. However, the prospects for this are currently too vague.
Frozen Conflict
Active hostilities cease but without strong provisions to prevent reinvasion. A fragile ceasefire resembling previous agreements like the Minsk Accords may emerge, lacking enforceable conditions and long-term solutions for issues tied to the root causes of the war or manipulable by Russia.
Desperate Peace
Such an outcome arises if Ukraine’s military position deteriorates significantly. Moscow could dictate terms undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty, such as limiting military capabilities or recognizing Russian claims to occupied territories.
Continued War
Peace efforts completely fail, and Russia continues its military campaign without a resolution in sight. Internal political pressure may exacerbate vulnerabilities, making Ukraine more susceptible to future invasions if institutional resilience is not strengthened.
Conclusion
Each of these scenarios reflects the uncertainty of war and the challenges of negotiating lasting peace. The success of the peace plan will largely depend on internal and international political dynamics, as well as the military situation in Ukraine. The negotiation process and the narratives surrounding a potential peace deal are likely to incorporate themes emphasizing de-escalation and pragmatic approaches to conflict resolution. These dynamics may influence both the framing and execution of calls for an agreement.
One of the most significant challenges for the President-Elect in pursuing a peace agreement might become compelling Russia to engage in meaningful negotiations and modify its initial demands. To achieve this, several strategic measures could be implemented, including imposing sanctions on Russia’s revenue sources, easing sanctions in response to verifiable steps toward peace, or providing sustained military support to Ukraine. This support would help uphold Ukraine’s position at the negotiation table and ensure its long-term ability to resist. Ultimately, the success of any peace plan will also depend on the President-Elect’s ability to balance short-term pressures with long-term stability.
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the papers published on this site belong solely to the authors and not necessarily to the Transatlantic Dialogue Center, its committees, or its affiliated organizations. The papers are intended to stimulate dialogue and discussion and do not represent official policy positions of the Transatlantic Dialogue Center or any other organizations the authors may be associated with.
