Over the nearly three years of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, several “peace plans” for ending the war have been proposed. However, none have attracted as much attention as Donald Trump’s “Ukraine peace plan,” which is being developed by his special representative, Keith Kellogg. Even during his presidential campaign, Trump expressed his intention to bring the war to an end within 24 hours.
Following his victory in last autumn’s election, observers began hypothesising about how the president-elect plans to achieve this. Some experts, brimming with enthusiasm, are already speculating about the composition of the parties involved in ceasefire negotiations and what concessions Ukraine might make to Russia to pave the “pathway to peace.” It is even suggested that, given the United States’ role as a key supplier of weapons and intelligence to Ukraine, it could begin negotiating with Moscow without Kyiv’s participation.
However, regardless of how noble the intentions of those advocating for expedited talks may be, forcing Kyiv into negotiations could have serious repercussions—not only for Ukraine but also for the west.
Moscow Needs to Be Put Under Pressure, Not Kyiv
When discussing potential negotiations, Trump’s advisors see US arms supplies to Ukraine as their primary bargaining chip. Their argument is that if Zelenskyy refuses to negotiate, the White House could reduce military aid. Conversely, if Putin is unwilling to seek compromises, Washington might arm Ukraine to the teeth.
However, pressuring Kyiv is unlikely to diminish the Ukrainian army’s determination to resist and would almost certainly push Ukraine away from the west. Neither Ukraine’s military and political leadership, nor a significant portion of its civil society and population—no matter how war-weary they may be—are prepared to surrender.
An attempt to strike a deal with Moscow behind Kyiv’s back and at Ukraine’s expense would also likely backfire within NATO, straining relations with at least a third of its members. For these nations, Russia’s aggression against Ukraine poses a direct threat to their security.
Intensifying pressure on Moscow, on the other hand, carries fewer risks for Washington. On the contrary, it would reinforce US leadership and demonstrate its ability to promote peace through strength, while addressing the security concerns of allies on NATO’s eastern flank.
Trump’s False Start
By pledging to end “Biden’s war” in a single day, Donald Trump has revealed his focus on achieving a quick political deal. This indicates that his priority is not the substance of the negotiations’ outcome but rather how swiftly an agreement can be reached. Both Zelenskyy and Putin likely understand that the new US administration could come down on them like a tsunami—something each would try to redirect toward their opponent.
The President of Ukraine has already expressed hope that “Trump’s unpredictability will primarily target Russia.” Overall, Kyiv is striving to project a constructive willingness to engage in dialogue with Washington. However, Ukraine will hardly accept any concessions compromising its sovereignty and territorial integrity, as they might effectively mark the beginning of the end for Ukrainian statehood.
Russia, for its part, is diligently working to convince Trump that pressuring Kyiv, rather than Moscow, would be a cheaper and more effective path to securing a deal. While demonstrating its willingness to discuss the “Ukrainian issue” with the new US administration, Putin consistently sets conditions for Ukraine to engage in direct talks. These include holding presidential elections or reversing the decision by Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council, which declared negotiations with the Russian president impossible following Russia’s annexation of four Ukrainian regions in September 2022. At the same time, the Russian dictator frequently emphasises that it is Washington’s responsibility to pressure Zelenskyy into meeting these preconditions.
In general, Vladimir Putin signals that he is in no rush to negotiate. For instance, when asked by an American journalist a few weeks ago what he could bring to the table in negotiations with Trump, Putin launched into a tirade about the Russia’s resilience and strength, repeating the word “confident” four times. For the same purpose, despite the fact that Russia’s defence industry cannot fully meet the needs of its army, along with the high losses in materiel and personnel, Putin is intensifying pressure along the entire front line.
In this context, Trump’s eagerness to score quick foreign policy points at the start of his second term becomes yet another card in the Kremlin’s hand, further reinforcing Putin’s belief that he can ultimately wear down the west and force Ukraine into submission.
Forced Negotiations in Putin’s Favour
It is clear that the Kremlin—and the majority of the Russian population loyal to it—envisions no end to the war other than the destruction of the Ukrainian state. At the same time, Ukraine has no intention of surrendering its statehood and will continue to fight for it with determination.
Forcing Ukraine into agreements with Russia under such conditions would be an act of strategic short-sightedness and an open invitation for another round of aggression. Above all, sacrificing Ukraine’s sovereignty for the illusion that a deal with Putin could satisfy and pacify Russia is a grave mistake. History, including very recent events, has repeatedly demonstrated that this approach simply does not work. Russian elites believe that Europe and the US, after enjoying decades of increasing prosperity, have grown feeble and incapable of standing firm against Russia. In their worldview, peace is merely the continuation of war by other means. They see it as natural for Russia to seize what neighbouring countries and the west are unwilling or unable to defend. As a result, Moscow respects commitments only to stronger powers, while viewing “non-sovereign states” and weaklings as undeserving of such privileges.
Moreover, peace negotiations that do not result in Ukraine’s capitulation carry the risk of fracturing Russia’s elites. Putin will undoubtedly try to avoid this, as the consolidation of the ruling and business circles is one of the cornerstones of his increasingly dictatorial political regime.
It is also evident that Putin will seek to use negotiations to undermine the cohesion of Ukrainian society. His statements about dealing only with a “legitimate president of Ukraine” who has undergone an election process signal that he does not truly seek peace. Instead, Putin’s aim is to replace Ukraine’s united resistance to the invasion by Russian and North Korean forces with internal political infighting. In other words, Putin intends to exploit Trump’s eagerness for a quick deal to strangle Ukraine using Washington’s hands.
Standing With Ukraine Is Crucial for West’s Security
As outlined in NATO documents, a strong and independent Ukraine is “vital for the stability and security of the Euro-Atlantic area.” Compromising with Putin at Ukraine’s expense is, therefore, effectively a compromise at the expense of Euro-Atlantic security as well. Any proposed limitations on Ukraine’s sovereignty—whether concerning NATO membership, the size of its armed forces, or defence cooperation with its partners—would merely serve as a prelude to Ukraine’s disappearance from the political map and an escalation of security challenges for Europe.
The only sensible course for Washington in the current situation would be to hold onto its winning hand, call Putin’s bluff at every raise, and seize the initiative. Negotiations should not be overvalued; they are often just a technical mechanism for formalising realities on the ground. And those realities depend on Ukraine’s ability to win the war against Russia and emerge as a strong, independent state, as well as on the west’s ability to bolster its own defensive capabilities.
Therefore, it would be strategically prudent not to push Kyiv toward a de facto capitulation, repeating the mistakes of the 2014-15 Minsk Agreements, but instead to invest in shifting the situation on the frontline in Ukraine’s favour. This means expanding the range of weapons supplied to Ukraine and increasing their volume to at least 0.25% of GDP from each member of the Ramstein group; ramping up investments in western military production capacity; encouraging NATO allies to raise defence spending above 3% of GDP; strengthening NATO’s presence in the Baltic Sea and on its eastern flank; decisively cracking down on Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers; and moving toward a blanket ban on trade with Russia.
In this context, it would make sense to consider increasing US arms supplies to Ukraine with greater financial contributions from Europe. This would give Donald Trump the opportunity to report to voters a significant reduction in the trade deficit with the EU. Europe, by strengthening Ukraine, would reduce its own security risks and gain time to intensively ramp up investments in its defence industry. In turn, Ukraine would receive the weapons it desperately needs to survive and restore its territorial integrity.
Views expressed in ICDS publications are those of the author(s).