Why Trump’s Ukraine Peace Initiative Will Fail

The big news this week is that Trump picked the hillbilly-turned-Yale-lawyer-turned-goth-hillbilly, J.D. Vance, as his VP. Vance is notoriously isolationist and anti-Ukraine. As of this writing, Biden refuses to step aside and give the Dems a chance. Barring unforeseen circumstances, Trump will most likely be the US President in January, and his Ukraine-apathetic lackey, Vance, will be the VP. Ukraine and Europe must assume that there will be no further US military assistance. Trump’s first order of business seems to be to end the war in Ukraine. It will be the first failure of his second term as President.  

Hungary’s Victor Orbán, Europe’s recently self-anointed Neville Chamberland, said this week that Trump relayed “detailed and well-founded plans” for immediately resolving the war after the election. So, what is Trump’s plan (as we think we know it)? The closest thing to the details we have thus far is from a paper released last month from the right-leaning Trump-centric think tank America First. If you hate yourself, you can read the entire article here. The gist of the plan is to force a cease-fire along existing front lines, create a demilitarized zone (DMZ) along the same, initially reinforce Ukrainian defenses with US military aid yet withhold future support if Ukraine refuses to participate in negotiations adequately, and entice Putin with sanctions relief and a firm “no” to Ukraine joining NATO (what I consider the best part of Trump’s plan, considering the absolute impossibility of this ever happening). Additionally, it is widely held that Trump might push a land-for-peace deal that sees Russia retaining parts of the Donbas and the whole of Crimea. Again, nobody can really know what’s going on inside Trump’s head, but because he has pronounced multiple times that he will end the war immediately upon his reelection, we can be certain he will attempt to do just that.

From the perspective of Ukraine, the plan is completely untenable. First, it is widely believed that any cease-fire will disproportionately favor Russia. This week, multiple sources reported on how Russia is relying on a dwindling supply of Soviet-era vehicles (including T-55 tanks from the 1950s and ‘60s; see video here). A cease-fire would allow Russia to replenish its capabilities while giving the Russian army a reason to stop its calamitous offensive escapades that, for months, have caused over 1,000 casualties per day. Also, Russia has resorted to forcing their wounded soldiers back into the “meat assaults.” In discussions with Ukrainian soldiers on the front, I was told that captured Russians recently reported that they were given only ten days of training prior to deployment. A cease-fire would be a welcomed opportunity for Russia to rearm and grow its army. At the same time, Ukraine’s personnel and recruitment problem would prevent a proportional increase in its military capabilities during the same period. Ukraine’s theory of victory relies on continual, uninterrupted damage to Russia until Putin capitulates.    

Second, Zelensky is in no position to acquiesce on any of his maximal war goals, especially regarding land-for-peace deals. His current 10-point peace plan calls for Russia to withdraw all its troops from the internationally recognized territory of Ukraine, which includes the Donbas and Crimea. Zelenksy is sensitive to issues that might upset his electorate (lowering the conscription age, for example) and is well aware that since 2004, Ukrainians have developed a taste for massive demonstrations and are poised to reflood the Maidan. Regardless, Zelensky is Ukraine’s war leader. Much like his oft referenced analog Winston Churchill, Zelensky is unlikely to survive, politically, the inevitable peace process, especially one that fails to adequately represent the sacrifice Ukraine has made during this war.

Third, Trump’s timing is off. Both sides must be ready to negotiate. While Putin might be looking for a respite from embarrassing attacks deep within the Russian interior, ridiculously high casualty rates, and the ever-present specter of a military-led coup, Russia is still slowly taking territory. Putin is aware of Ukraine’s personnel woes, and as long as he can somehow maintain his current level of soldier replenishment (currently 30,000 per month), he’s happy to continue to slowly bleed Ukraine.   

For Ukraine, it is slowly starting to regain the momentum on the battlefield. US and European weapons are flowing, and long-promised unicorns, like the F-16, seem poised to make their appearance. As previously mentioned, equipment-wise Russians are desperate, using Chinese golf carts and old motorcycles as infantry assault vehicles. Additionally, there is a strong allure to the persistent idea that the killing and maiming of so many Russians must directly lead to victory (an idea that I adamantly refute, what I call the Dead Russian Fallacy). Most importantly, Ukrainians are not ready to negotiate. Despite the impending winter woes exasperated by Russian strategic attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, a vast majority of Ukrainians are not yet sufficiently inconvenienced by the war to consider capitulation (see my video report from Ukraine referencing “Ukraine at War, Ukraine at Dinner”). Both sides must be ready to negotiate, but both sides feel there is reason to believe they currently have the upper hand.

And what of a possible threat to withhold US assistance? I am confident that Europe alone can provide enough military capability for Ukraine to defeat Russia. The question is: will they have the political will to do so? This week, Germany announced that it will reduce its aid to Ukraine next year by half. While there are staunch supporters of Ukraine in the EU (UK, Netherlands, Poland-ish, the Baltics), it may take an actual Trump victory to spur some countries into action. The danger is that, once again, politics will delay necessary aid to Ukraine, giving the momentum back to Russia and prolonging the conflict.      

Lastly, parts of Trump’s plan might not be physically possible. Although there was no mention in the America First piece about threatening to massively increase US military aid to Ukraine if Russia fails to negotiate, it is a possible threat that Trump could use to force Putin’s hand. But what additional material support could Trump increase to Ukraine in response to Russia not participating in the peace process? This is where it gets weird. Even if Trump wanted to increase aid to Ukraine, he might not be able to do it. First, the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), which allows the administration to give existing (in stock) US military equipment to other countries, is limited by law, and Biden may attempt to send most of it to Ukraine before January. If he’s successful, Trump will have to request another aid package from Congress. At first blush, this seems like an easy task: Trump has his party locked down and Dems are all about supporting Ukraine. But, there is always the possibility of a caucus of disaffected liberals blocking this bill because, well, just because. Sounds preposterous? So does the fact that the Republicans, the party of Ronald Reagan, have taken an anti-Ukraine stance favoring former Soviet Russia. Trump might not have any immediate support to give to Ukraine to bolster its defenses, and Putin knows it.  

In a 2023 CNN town hall, Trump said of the war, “I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that done – I’ll have that done in 24 hours.” Although a valiant sentiment, carelessly ending a war (ala Afghanistan, 2021) can destroy the peace. The ramifications of Russia’s actions are too serious, the consequences too dire. This war will continue until the conditions are met that are favorable and just toward Ukraine.

The West really has only two options regarding the war. Option one: abandon Ukraine, and in five to ten years, Russia will finally take the entire country, and while the rest of the world is preoccupied with China invading Taiwan, Russia will invade Moldova or Georgia while continuing to expand its hybrid warfare throughout Europe--this war continues indefinitely. Or, option two: Europe goes it alone. Europe gives Ukraine everything they need to finally finish off this zombie invasion. I believe Europe has more than sufficient military capability to make this happen. In the end, there’s only one real peace plan: Ukraine must pound Russia into submission and end this war on Ukraine’s terms.