U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing for a peaceful solution to end Russia's three-year-long war in Ukraine.
Maximum Pressure Strategy
The Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) proposal, titled “ How to Win: A Seven-Point Plan for Sustainable Peace in Ukraine,” proposes implementing a “maximum pressure strategy” to get Russia to negotiate in good faith.
The plan proposes that America and its allies: "Provide immediate, unconditional material support to Ukraine, aimed at weakening Russia's military and thereby improving Ukraine's negotiating position."
"Tightening sanctions on Russian financial institutions and the energy sector, redirecting frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine's defense and reconstruction, and implementing secondary sanctions to increase economic pressure, not only on Russia but also on authoritarian regimes in China, Iran, and North Korea."
CEPA asserts that “Ukraine and Europe” must be involved in any peace talks with Russia, and that the US should support a “European-led coalition of the willing” to maintain “a ceasefire line with international forces,” and that “European allies should move consistently and expeditiously towards Ukraine’s membership in the European Union.”
One of the report's authors, Catherine Sendak, CEPA's Director for Transatlantic Defense and Security, told VOA that the United States should negotiate with Russia only after "arming Ukraine as hard as possible" and using its best "diplomatic tools."
Sendak stressed that Ukraine's possible membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, should not be part of the negotiations with Russia. "Discussing this with a non-NATO country... I don't think it's beneficial for any negotiations," he said, noting that it could give Russia a kind of "veto" over decisions to accept new members of the alliance.
Negotiation Tactics
Josh Rudolph, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund and head of the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group, previously worked on Russia and Ukraine policy at the National Security Council during the first Trump administration.
Last month, he offered policy recommendations to the current Trump administration to end the Ukraine conflict.
Among them: "Confront [Russian President Vladimir] Putin from a position of strength. If at the start of Trump's first term Putin appeared tough and capable, his blunders in Ukraine have now weakened him. ... As the dominant party in this relationship, Trump—not Putin—should be setting the terms of negotiations."
“Know when to back off. The critical moment in the negotiations will come when Putin refuses to make major concessions. Trump must be ready to back off.”
"Couple sanctions with lower oil and gas prices. The most effective way to make Putin realize that pressuring Ukraine could be fatal for his regime is to pressure Russia financially. ... By leveraging his closer ties with Saudi Arabia than [former President Joe] Biden, Trump should flood the market with fossil fuels. This would keep sanctions in place, weaken Russia's war machine, and increase the risk of political instability in Moscow."
Rudolph also suggested arming Ukraine "to the teeth," giving it "all $300 billion worth of frozen Russian assets," and encouraging Europe to "pay more for weapons" and deploy 100,000 troops as "peacekeepers." He also recommended giving "American companies a role in rebuilding Ukraine" and inviting Ukraine to join NATO if Putin refuses to accept "reasonable" peace terms.
Rudolph told VOA that Trump could convince Americans who are now skeptical of military aid to Ukraine that supporting Ukrainian arms as part of a peace deal would actually benefit American workers.
"[Trump] could reassure them by saying, 'OK, now we've got a great deal—a deal secured by rare earths, which has ended the war. And to keep it going, we need to make sure the flow of American-made weapons continues, which, by the way, will create a lot of jobs, facilities and factories all over the red states.'"
Economic Benefits
In a report titled “Dollars and Common Sense: America’s Interest in Ukraine’s Victory,” Elaine McCusker, Frederick W. Kagan, and Richard Sims of the American Enterprise Institute analyze the costs of Washington withdrawing support for Ukraine. They conclude that such a move would result in Kyiv’s defeat and Russia’s further advance into Europe, ultimately forcing the United States to increase its military presence in the region.
Among the report’s conclusions: “Helping Ukraine achieve victory over Russia is in the United States’ best interests,” the report said. “A Russian-dominated world would be more dangerous and more costly for America—with projected defense spending increasing by $808 billion over five years.”
"On the contrary, an increased and accelerated multinational commitment to Ukraine and an imminent end to the war will create a free and dynamic Ukraine, with a modernized and battle-tested military and a thriving industrial base—all of which will contribute to European stability."
In an interview with VOA, Frederick Kagan said that a Russian victory in Ukraine would also benefit Iran, China and North Korea, potentially encouraging their aggression in their respective regions. In addition, Russia could strengthen its military by utilizing human and material resources from Ukraine.
Kagan said that if Russia took control of Ukraine, a wave of refugees would flood Europe and further destabilize the continent.
Kagan predicted that the atrocities against the Ukrainian population in the occupied territories would worsen as the invasion spread westward, especially in pro-Western and anti-Russian areas. He said that if that happened, the impact would be horrific and indescribable.
He said a surge in aid to Ukraine would make it a bastion of European peace and security, with a battle-tested military and advanced defense industry. This would allow the United States to shift its focus to other regions.
Middle Way Policy
The Heritage Foundation's 2025 Presidential Transition Project report contains policy recommendations regarding the Russia-Ukraine war.
The report said that the American conservative movement is divided between supporters of Kyiv and those who want to withdraw support. As a solution, they propose a middle-ground approach.
Among Project 2025's recommendations: "With regard to Ukraine, America's continued involvement should be fully paid for; limited to military assistance (while European allies address Ukraine's economic needs); and have a clearly defined national security strategy that does not endanger American lives."
“Despite differences of opinion, all parties agree that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was illegitimate and that the Ukrainian people have the right to defend their homeland. This conflict has weakened Putin’s military power while strengthening the unity and importance of NATO for European countries.”
“The next conservative president has a historic opportunity to resolve the movement’s foreign policy differences and chart a new course that positions Communist China as the primary threat to American interests in the 21st century.”
James Carafano, a national security expert at The Heritage Foundation who leads its defense and foreign policy team, told VOA that it is in the United States' interest to ensure that Ukraine remains free, independent and capable of defending itself.
“The practical issue is, a united Europe can defend itself, and the United States can defend Europe if Ukraine is occupied by Russia. Now, having said that, are we... much, much better off if Russia is on the other side of Ukraine? And the answer is 'of course,'" he said.
In July, VOA published an interview with retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who served as Trump's envoy to Ukraine and Russia, about his vision for ending the war in Ukraine.
Post a Comment for "Four Scenarios for Achieving Peace in Ukraine"