Trump is reportedly considering three approaches to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, none involve NATO membership—a contentious issue.
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has captured global attention as the quest for peace continues to involve high-stakes negotiations, military strategies, and international politics. With Donald Trump poised to take office as the next US President, new potential scenarios for resolving the conflict have surfaced. Below are the key proposals and the challenges that lie ahead in securing lasting peace in Ukraine.
Three Paths to Peace: Trump’s Proposals
President-elect Trump is reportedly considering three primary approaches to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, none of which involve Ukraine’s NATO membership—a contentious issue that has fueled tensions with Moscow.
General Keith Kellogg’s Plan
Kellogg suggests freezing current battle lines while increasing US military aid to Ukraine. In return, Kyiv would agree to enter peace talks. Should Russia refuse to negotiate, US aid to Ukraine would escalate, with the US providing security guarantees through arms supplies. This proposal relies on maintaining pressure on Moscow while bolstering Ukraine’s defense capabilities.
JD Vance’s Proposal
Vice President-elect JD Vance envisions a demilitarized zone along the current front lines, heavily fortified to prevent further Russian incursions. This approach could create a buffer to reduce immediate hostilities but may leave critical questions unresolved, such as sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Richard Grenell’s Approach
Grenell advocates for establishing “autonomous zones” in Eastern Ukraine, potentially offering a compromise to de-escalate the situation. However, this proposal raises concerns about Ukraine’s territorial integrity and risks legitimizing Russian influence in occupied territories.
These proposals demonstrate varied approaches to balancing diplomacy and military pressure. However, Russian President Vladimir Putin may resist negotiations, believing continued aggression offers greater strategic gains.
Ukraine’s Pursuit of Sustainable Peace
Ukrainian officials, including Andriy Yermak, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, have met with Trump’s team, signaling Kyiv’s readiness for peace. Ukraine has emphasized that temporary, unstable agreements are not in its interest. Instead, the country seeks a durable resolution that ensures sovereignty and long-term security.
Yermak’s discussions with US officials, including Kellogg and JD Vance, have focused on bolstering Ukraine’s military before Trump’s inauguration to gain leverage in negotiations. However, Trump’s lack of interest in Ukraine’s NATO membership underscores a significant gap between Kyiv’s aspirations and Washington’s stance.
Partial NATO Accession: A Potential Solution?
One intriguing possibility involves Ukraine’s partial NATO accession—a technically feasible but politically sensitive solution. Historical precedents, such as divided Germany during the Cold War, suggest that NATO membership for parts of Ukraine could be an option. Proponents, including former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, argue that partial accession could deter further Russian aggression. However, implementing this would require careful negotiation, defining the territories under NATO’s Article 5 protection.
Countries like Poland, France, and the Baltic states may support partial accession, but others, such as Germany, remain cautious, fearing direct involvement in a broader conflict. Ukrainian President Zelensky has acknowledged NATO membership is unlikely before the war’s end but continues to advocate for strong Euro-Atlantic ties.
Europe’s Role Amid US Uncertainty
Amid uncertainty surrounding Trump’s stance on Ukraine, the European Union is preparing contingency plans. With the risk of the US withdrawing from a $50 billion G7 loan agreement, the EU has pledged to step in to ensure Ukraine receives financial support. European leaders, including Polish Deputy Finance Minister Pawel Karbownik, are urging Trump to clarify his intentions to allow the EU time to adjust.
At the same time, EU countries are exploring a €500 billion joint defense fund, aiming to strengthen Europe’s security architecture in response to Trump’s perceived skepticism of NATO commitments. This initiative underscores Europe’s growing resolve to enhance its defense capabilities independently of US policy shifts.
NATO and the Search for Stability
Within NATO, discussions continue about potential scenarios to end the war. Options include creating a demilitarized zone patrolled by European troops and offering Ukraine security guarantees without provoking Russia. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has called for increased military assistance to Ukraine, emphasizing the need for a decisive turning point in the conflict.
The Road Ahead
As peace efforts evolve, Ukraine stands at the center of complex geopolitical dynamics. Trump’s proposals, Europe’s defense initiatives, and NATO’s strategies each reflect different priorities and constraints. Achieving lasting peace will require navigating these challenges with diplomatic finesse, ensuring Ukraine’s sovereignty while addressing the broader security concerns of Europe and the West.
The stakes are high, and the world will be watching closely as Ukraine, the US, and its allies seek a resolution to one of the most significant conflicts of our time.
