Former President Donald Trump has shifted his stance on Ukraine, moving away from President Biden’s approach of involving Ukraine in all discussions about the conflict. Trump is now advocating for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, aiming to bring President Volodymyr Zelensky to the table and engage with Russian President Vladimir Putin. His goal is to end the war without weakening Russia or allowing Ukraine to fully reclaim its lost territories.
This change in strategy has sparked frustration among European leaders and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. French President Emmanuel Macron and British leader Keir Starmer are rallying support for Ukraine, emphasizing their commitment to helping the country resist what they describe as Russia’s unjust aggression. However, while they call for a ceasefire, they also push for conditions that may hinder any real peace, such as security guarantees that Russia opposes.
Critics argue that it is not Trump but rather these leaders who are betraying Ukraine. They contend that continuing the war will only lead to more devastation for Ukraine, which is already facing significant losses. The reality, they say, is that Ukraine is not poised to join NATO, a point Trump has made clear to NATO allies. The ongoing conflict risks escalating into a broader war, and many believe it is time to acknowledge this reality and seek a resolution.
One major hurdle in ceasefire talks will be the issue of borders. Russia may have to concede some territories while retaining others. Ukraine’s allies need to recognize that reclaiming lost lands through military means is unlikely. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has warned that expecting Ukraine to regain all its territory is unrealistic. Zelensky himself has acknowledged the limitations of Ukraine’s military strength regarding regions like Crimea and Donbas.
Russia’s insistence on ensuring the safety of ethnic Russians in the Donbas region complicates negotiations. The possibility of achieving this through autonomy was lost due to earlier diplomatic failures. The Ukrainian military is not equipped to retake all the contested areas, and failure to accept this reality could prolong the conflict.
Moreover, acknowledging Russia’s security concerns is not the same as condoning its actions. Acknowledging past promises regarding NATO expansion could help create a framework for discussion. Russia’s motivations, while not justified, stem from a sense of betrayal over NATO’s eastward expansion after the Cold War.
For a lasting peace, the notion that Ukraine will not join NATO needs to be formally recognized. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has indicated that once the war concludes, the West will seek to restore relations with Russia. This approach may be necessary to build a stable security framework in Europe, which has been lacking since the Cold War ended.
Pushing for an end to the war in Ukraine is not a betrayal of the country. Instead, it aligns policy with the current realities on the ground. It allows Ukraine to maintain most of its territory while providing Russia with the security assurances it seeks. Ultimately, this strategy aims for a stable Europe, reducing the chances of future conflicts. The ongoing push for peace by Trump’s administration may be in Ukraine’s best interest, despite the outcry from European leaders.