Source: Lew Rockwell | VIEW ORIGINAL POST ==>
Trump’s plans and approach towards Russia’s war on Ukraine is already evident in his campaign speeches and psoturing. Trump has often boasted about his capacity to negotiate deals, positioning himself as a peacemaker who will bring an end to the war.
His approach would center on swift negotiations and most certainly involving controversial proposals for territorial compromises. However, it is war and unpredictability is a constant. So the specifics would depend heavily on the ongoing state of the conflict and geopolitical dynamics in early 2025.
1. Focus on Negotiation and Ceasefire
Trump has repeatedly claimed that he could negotiate a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia within a short timeframe (sometimes stating 24 hours). His approach would center on bringing both parties to the negotiating table for immediate ceasefire talks. He’s already had phone calls with Zelensky and Putin who is currently pushing the strategic edge with Trump by calling for a Trump-led negotiation kick-off. In a way, Putin and Trump are already on same page but on same negotiation terms? That will have to be seen but it’s unlikely Trump will want to entirely go Putin’s way and be seen as bending over for Putin.
Trump’s main pitch would likely involve pressuring both sides into halting hostilities temporarily, setting the stage for further discussions on territorial disputes. Trump will argue that continued conflict is a lose-lose situation especially for Ukraine- a claim he already repeated, insisting that Ukraine is losing and Russia is winning and has hinted ending US aid, and he isn’t known to back down from his position even when proven wrong. Leveraging economic interests with Russia as an appeal to ending the war is also key for him.
2. Compromise in the name of “Peace”
Trump has shown a willingness to consider compromises that will involve territorial concessions, at least implicitly. This position is contentious for many reasons and would be met with strong resistance both in Ukraine and among Western allies.
Trump might propose a referendum-based approach, especially so as key members of his team support this.
Elon has repeatedly pushed similar ideas, suggesting that disputed areas such as Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk hold internationally supervised referendums to determine their status. Like it or not, Trump will take it as great if Elon says it’s good. This idea could be framed as a democratic solution, though it would be heavily criticized given Russia’s strong political/military control and occupation over those areas, especially so as millions of Ukrainians has fled those areas leaving their homes and livelihood behind.
Another possible angle could involve Trump advocating for a federated model in Ukraine, where regions could have greater autonomy- hasn’t worked in the past due Russia’s persistent interference. This might include proposals to give the Russian-occupied areas special status or increased autonomy while remaining under nominal Ukrainian sovereignty. It would be an attempt to satisfy both parties without a full land concession. But with Russian interference, it will be Moldova all over again. Some will argue that’s better if it stops the war now. Ukraine however much prefers a solution that contains Russia now and in the future.
3. Pressure on Ukraine to Compromise
Trump has often criticized the extensive military aid provided to Ukraine, arguing it prolongs the conflict. Trump’s Republican Party blocked aid to Ukraine for more than nine months from October 2023 to April 2024, forcing Kyiv to deplete its wartime budget, while the EU scrambled indecisively, mostly due to limited wartime capacity, leading to the loss of some of Ukraine’s most capable fighters and territorial gains for Russia. In a second term, Trump will leverage US support to push Ukraine towards a compromise, by conditioning future aid on entering negotiations with Russia and possibly demanding territorial concessions.
This stance would clearly be met with strong opposition from Ukrainian leadership, who have maintained a firm line on not ceding any territory.
4. Short-sighted Realignment of US Foreign Policy
In a second term, Trump might favor US making compromises too, by attempting to realign US foreign policy as a first step to reduce tensions with Russia, prioritizing strategic relations with Moscow over Ukraine’s territorial integrity in an America-first mode. Obama and Merkel already experimented and tried this approach- IT FAILED. Still, Trump will frame this as a necessary realpolitik move to end the war now and to counterbalance China’s rising influence, arguing that a stable relationship with Russia is more crucial for global balance.
This could translate into reduced diplomatic and military support for Ukraine, pressuring them to negotiate from a weaker position and possibly consider compromises that they might not entertain under a different US administration.
5. Leveraging Economic Sanctions and Incentives
Trump could propose a deal that involves lifting some sanctions on Russia in exchange for a ceasefire and negotiated settlement, offering economic incentives for both Ukraine and Russia to agree on a compromise. Stability and economic gains in exchange for compromises.
This approach would likely focus on rebuilding Ukraine and offering reconstruction aid, but conditioned on Ukraine’s willingness to accept a peace deal that includes some form of territorial concession.
Trump’s approach will expectedly be a mix of a couple or more of the above scenarios.
Potential Backlash
Any proposal involving territorial concessions would be extremely controversial. Ukraine, under President Zelensky, has consistently rejected any loss of territory, viewing it as a violation of national sovereignty and a reward for Russian aggression and that’s largely true without commensurate compensations to Ukraine or if those concessions gladden Russia.
European allies would likely oppose such a compromise as well, seeing it as a dangerous precedent that undermines the Baltic States, security of Europe, international law and the post-WW2 order. Trump would face significant backlash from NATO members who have supported Ukraine’s full sovereignty.
Importantly, whichever route Trump takes, would depend heavily on the political dynamics and the war status, including the strength of Russian advances, Ukraine’s resilience, and the broader geopolitical landscape, especially US-NATO relations. Of course, fractured US-NATO relations under Trump isn’t good for Ukraine.
No, I am not privy to any of Trump’s confirmed future plans or policy documents. While these scenarios, as with any analysis of future events, is speculative, it is based on extrapolating Trump’s prior foreign policy positions, recent rhetoric from him and those around him.
Reprinted with permission from MadgeWaggy.blogspot.com.
