Unclear strategies: How Trump envisions ending the war in Ukraine

Contents

• Plans and their differences
• Struggle for Ukraine's NATO membership
• How Ukraine tries to influence Trump's plans

Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the new President of the United States on January 20 of next year. As this day approaches, more leaks about plans to end Russia’s war against Ukraine are appearing in American media. However, Trump himself has remained silent on the issue until recently.

The first statement in a long time came on December 8, following a meeting in Paris with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and French President Emmanuel Macron. Trump called for an immediate ceasefire and negotiations between Ukraine and Russia.

"Too many lives have been needlessly lost, too many families have been destroyed, and if this continues, it could turn into something much bigger and much worse. I know Vladimir well. This is his time to act. China can help," Trump wrote on his Truth Social.

Even in this statement, there are hardly any details about how Trump envisions the war’s end. In the absence of specifics, the global information space has been filled with outright absurd insights about possible solutions, such as “sending Volodymyr Zelenskyy into exile in London.” However, amidst the information chaos, it is worth considering the ideas coming from people in Trump’s circle.

Plans and their differences

According to Reuters, Trump has been presented with three main options for ending the war, as reported by sources close to him. These include plans by newly appointed special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, and former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell.

Kellogg’s plan was first introduced in April in an article for the America First Institute, this plan proposes freezing the conflict along the current front lines. It suggests that Trump would provide Ukraine with more American weapons only if Kyiv agrees to peace negotiations. At the same time, the US would warn Moscow of increased support for Ukraine if Russia refuses to negotiate.

Vance’s plan initially presented his plan in September during an interview on The Shawn Ryan Show. This plan envisions creating a demilitarized zone along existing front lines. Under the plan, Russia retains occupied territories, while Ukraine is heavily fortified to prevent future Russian aggression.

Grenell’s plan was discussed in July during a Bloomberg-organized roundtable. His plan involves establishing autonomous zones in Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine. However, Grenell did not specify which territories this would include.

All three plans lack specifics and resemble general concepts rather than concrete peace proposals.

"These are more like fragments of a broader idea that needs to be formalized. Once formalized, it will become a real position with substance and structure, rather than an abstract notion discussed by everyone," said Oleh Prelovskyi, an associate expert at the Institute of American Studies, in an interview with RBC-Ukraine.

Furthermore, regarding territorial issues, all the concepts coming from Trump’s circle appear to clash with Ukraine’s position, as the country will undoubtedly continue to fight for the return of its territories.

Struggle for Ukraine's NATO membership

The common thread among all three options is the postponement of Ukraine's NATO membership for an undefined period.

Vance stated that the Ukraine-controlled portion of the country would remain an independent sovereign state, but Ukraine would provide Russia with guarantees of neutrality.

"It will not join NATO, nor any allied institutions," Vance said.

According to Kellogg's plan, NATO leaders should propose delaying Ukraine's membership in the alliance for an extended period in exchange for a comprehensive peace agreement with verifiable security guarantees. Grenell, however, did not specify any concrete details regarding Ukraine and NATO.

This apparent "unanimity" among Trump's circle and some European leaders stems from several considerations.

First, Ukraine's non-membership in NATO is seen as a permissible concession to Russia in future negotiations. For the Kremlin, this has been one of the declared objectives of the war. For the US, it's not a crucial issue.

Second, some NATO countries fear the alliance could be drawn into a war with Russia shortly after Ukraine joins, given Article 5 of NATO's charter, which declares an attack on one member as an attack on all.

However, for Ukraine, joining NATO is a matter of principle. Aware of the challenges, Kyiv is responding. On December 3, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Ukraine rejects any alternatives, substitutes, or surrogates for full NATO membership. According to the statement, the only genuine security guarantee for Ukraine and a deterrent against further Russian aggression is full membership in the alliance.

On December 1, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the possibility of limiting the applicability of NATO’s Article 5 to the territory under Ukraine's control.

Interestingly, Trump’s pragmatic stance could be an additional advantage for Ukraine, as he has long argued that Europe should contribute more to NATO’s security. This opens avenues for Kyiv to assist the alliance while seeking support from other NATO members.

"NATO is not a centrally managed organization. Every word matters. When it came to Sweden and Finland joining NATO, Hungary, and Türkiye opposed it, and concessions were made. Negotiating with the United States may be easier in this sense," Prelovskyi said.

One of Zelenskyy’s proposals in his victory plan includes deploying Ukrainian troops in Europe after the withdrawal of US forces from NATO bases.

How Ukraine tries to influence Trump's plans

The final plan will depend on internal balances within Trump’s circle. J.D. Vance is just six weeks away from becoming the second most influential figure in the US. Keith Kellogg has assumed the position of special envoy on Ukraine and Russia. Richard Grenell remains without an official role, and it’s unclear if he’ll receive one soon.

Another factor that could influence Trump’s stance is lobbying by interested parties in the US, including arms manufacturers benefiting from new contracts since the war began, oil companies, and even Christian Protestant groups connected to some members of Trump’s circle.

Ultimately, Ukraine is working to communicate its vision for ending the war to the new US leadership. Last week, Andriy Yermak, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, visited the US. According to the Wall Street Journal, he met with Keith Kellogg and Trump’s new National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz. Newly elected Vice President J.D. Vance also joined the discussions. Yermak met with Susan Wiles, the new White House Chief of Staff, in Florida.

US media reported that Trump’s team showed little interest in Ukraine’s NATO membership proposal. However, Kellogg supported providing Ukraine with weapons, which the Biden administration ramped up toward the end of its term.

The final decision will rest with Trump. Prelovskyi suggested that elements from various plans could be combined into a unified vision.

"Trump is often a unilateral actor. He might listen to different ideas and combine several into his own. I doubt a single thesis will form the foundation for ending or freezing the war," the expert said.

In any case, the plan for ending the war is far from finalized. There is still ample opportunity to advocate for Ukraine's interests, although time is running out.

Sources: Reuters, CNN, Sky News, Wall Street Journal, statements by Ukrainian and American politicians, and comments by Oleh Prelovskyi, an associate expert at the Institute of American Studies.