Just before the Munich Security Conference, the Trump administration made a significant diplomatic move by reaching out to European nations. They sent letters asking two main questions: What would these countries be willing to provide to Ukraine to aid in negotiations? And what roles would they be interested in taking on after the war, especially if the U.S. decided not to send peacekeeping forces?
The response from Europe was mixed. Some officials expressed condescension towards what they viewed as American isolationism, while others attempted to form a “coalition of the willing” to provide peacekeeping in Ukraine after a potential ceasefire. However, this coalition has struggled to take shape, largely due to the lack of American oversight in the process.
Despite their inability to wage war directly, European nations have continued to support Ukraine’s military efforts. This ongoing support has complicated U.S. attempts to reach a comprehensive peace agreement with Russia. A recent report highlighted tensions within the Pentagon, where some allies were questioned about their ongoing military aid to Ukraine, which went unanswered. Meanwhile, some Trump aides voiced frustration over Europe’s commitment to strengthening Ukraine’s position.
The Trump administration initially sought a straightforward resolution in Ukraine. However, internal disagreements have surfaced. Apart from Vice President J.D. Vance and special envoy Steve Witkoff, many in the cabinet, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, favor a more aggressive stance towards Russia. This division has hindered the administration’s peace efforts.
Trust issues also complicate the situation. Russia remains skeptical of American intentions, concerned that any peace agreement could be overturned by future U.S. administrations. As noted by political theorist Hans Morgenthau, a stable grand strategy is difficult for democratic states, which must consider public opinion and legislative approval.
To regain momentum for peace, there are two potential paths. One option is to continue negotiations while the conflict persists, though this may lead to a convoluted outcome. A more straightforward approach would be to set a firm date for a ceasefire, similar to historical precedents from the Korean War or World War I.
Proposing July 4 as a ceasefire date could provide President Trump with a political win ahead of the midterm elections. This plan would involve a mutual troop withdrawal and establish a de facto demilitarized zone. The U.S. would halt all military and financial aid to Ukraine, allowing negotiations to continue post-ceasefire. If Europe or Russia fails to comply, the U.S. could withdraw from the process entirely.
The reality is that Europe cannot sustain the war without American support, and any attempt to do so could fracture European unity. Conversely, Russia lacks the capacity to fully conquer Ukraine.
Ultimately, it is not solely America’s responsibility to mediate every aspect of the conflict. President Trump campaigned on a promise to seek peace in Ukraine and reduce U.S. involvement in European conflicts. A ceasefire would allow him to claim success in achieving peace, while any future breakdown could be attributed to Europe or Russia’s refusal to cooperate.
In a historical parallel, President Theodore Roosevelt once declared neutrality during the Russo-Japanese War, which eventually led both nations to seek American help in resolving their conflict. It may be time for President Trump to adopt a similar strategy: propose a ceasefire date and then step back to let the involved parties manage the aftermath.