President Donald Trump is pushing for a peaceful resolution to Russia’s now three-year-old full-scale war in Ukraine. VOA examined several different approaches recently put forward by think tanks aimed at achieving a lasting peace to the conflict.
A plan by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), titled “How to Win: A Seven-Point Plan for a Lasting Peace in Ukraine,” calls for “a maximum pressure strategy to bring Russia to the negotiating table in good faith.”
THE PLAN PROPOSES THAT THE UNITED STATES AND ITS ALLIES: “Should provide immediate material support to Ukraine without conditions, aimed at exhausting the Russian military and thereby improving Ukraine’s negotiating position. Sanctions should be increased on Russian financial institutions and energy sector entities, frozen Russian assets should be used to support Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction, and secondary sanctions should be imposed to intensify economic pressure not only on Russia, but also on the authoritarian regimes of China, Iran, and North Korea.”
CEPA says that “Ukraine and Europe” should be engaged in peace talks with Russia, that the United States should support “a European-led coalition of the willing” to implement a “ceasefire line with an international force,” and that “European allies should make sustained and rapid progress toward Ukraine’s membership in the European Union.”
One of the report’s authors, Catherine Sendak, a senior fellow at CEPA for transatlantic defense and security, told Voice of America’s Ukrainian service that the United States should enter into talks with Russia only by “providing Ukraine with the strongest possible tools” and using its toughest “diplomatic tools.” She added that the issue of Ukraine’s possible NATO membership should not be included in talks with Russia. “Discussing this with a non-NATO country … I don’t think it’s helpful for any negotiations,” Ms. Sendak said, noting that it would give Russia “a veto, if you will, over … the selection of members to join or not to join the alliance.”
NEGOTIATION TACTICS
Josh Rudolph, a fellow at the German Marshall Fund and head of the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group, worked on Russia and Ukraine policies on the National Security Council during President Trump’s first administration. Last month, he offered policy recommendations to the current Trump administration on ending the conflict in Ukraine.
AMONG THEM: “Approach [Russian President Vladimir] Putin from a position of strength. While Putin seemed tough and capable early in (President) Trump’s first term, his mistake in Ukraine has left him in a weakened position. As the dominant partner in this relationship, (President) Trump, not Putin, can set the negotiating terms.”
“Know when to walk away. A vital moment in the negotiations will come when Putin refuses to make major concessions. (President) Trump must be prepared to walk away.”
“Combine sanctions with lower oil and gas prices. The best way to make Putin understand that pressure in Ukraine would spell disaster for his rule is to put financial pressure on Russia… By taking advantage of his warmer relations with Saudi Arabia compared to those of [former President Joe] Biden, (President) Trump should supply the fossil fuel market, which would make sanctions sustainable, cause shortages in the Russian war machine, and generate risks to political stability in Moscow.”
Mr. Rudolph also recommended “fully” arming Ukraine; giving it “all $300 billion of Russia’s frozen assets”; making Europe “pay more for weapons” and providing 100,000 troops as “peacekeepers”; allowing “American companies to rebuild Ukraine”; and inviting Ukraine to join NATO if Russian President Putin refuses to accept “reasonable” terms of a peace deal. Mr. Rudolph told VOA that President Trump could convince those in the United States who are skeptical about continuing to arm Ukraine that doing so as part of a peace deal would benefit American workers. “He could tell them, OK, now we have a good deal, it’s secured by rare earths, it’s ended the war, and to keep it in place, we’re going to have to provide a continuity of supply of American-made weapons, which, by the way, create all these American jobs and facilities and factories in the states” governed by Republicans.
SEEKING ECONOMIC BENEFITS
In a report titled “Dollars and Worldview: America’s Interest in a Ukrainian Victory,” Elaine McCusker, Frederick W. Kagan, and Richard Sims of the American Enterprise Institute examined the cost of ending support for Ukraine, concluding that it would lead to Ukraine’s defeat and Russia’s advance further into Europe, forcing the United States to increase its presence in Europe.
AMONG THE REPORT’S CONCLUSIONS: “Supporting Ukraine in its victory over Russia is in the best interest of the United States.” “A world in which Russia dominates would be more dangerous and more expensive for America—requiring an estimated $808 billion increase in defense spending over five years.” “In contrast, an increased and accelerated multinational commitment to Ukraine and an end to the war in the near term would result in a revitalized and free Ukraine, with a newly modernized and battle-tested military and a developed industrial base that would help stabilize Europe.”
In an interview with Voice of America, Frederick Kagan said that a Russian victory in Ukraine would be a victory for Iran, China, and North Korea, encouraging adventurist tendencies in their respective Regions and allowing Russia to rebuild its military by obtaining additional human and material resources from within Ukraine.
A Russian takeover of Ukraine would send a flood of refugees into Europe, further destabilizing the continent, Mr. Kagan said. “They have committed atrocities on the Ukrainian population in the areas they occupy. I would expect that to get worse the further west the Russians move and the further they move into the traditionally anti-Russian, pro-Western areas of western Ukraine. The horrors will be unspeakable,” he predicted. He said that increasing aid to Ukraine would turn it into a bulwark for European peace and security — a country with a battle-tested army and a rapidly developing military industry — thus enabling the United States to focus on other Regions.
THE MIDDLE PATH APPROACH
The Heritage Foundation’s “2025 Presidential Transition Project” includes policy recommendations regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. The material notes that the American conservative movement is divided on Ukraine — one side supports Kiev, the other favors leaving — and the project offered a middle ground.
AMONG PROJECT 2025’S RECOMMENDATIONS: “With regard to Ukraine, continued U.S. involvement should be fully funded; limited to military assistance (while European allies address Ukraine’s economic needs); and have a clearly defined national security strategy that does not endanger American lives.” “Regardless of views, all sides agree that Putin’s (ordered) attack on Ukraine is unjust and that the Ukrainian people have the right to defend their homeland. The conflict has severely weakened Putin’s military strength and provided a boost to NATO unity and its importance to European countries. “The next conservative president has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to resolve foreign policy tensions within the movement and to chart a new path forward that recognizes communist China as the defining threat to American interests in the 21st century.”
James Carafano, a national security expert at the Heritage Foundation and head of the defense and foreign policy team, told VOA that it is in the United States’ interest to have a free and independent Ukraine that can defend itself. “So the practical question is that a united Europe can defend itself and the United States can defend Europe, if Ukraine is invaded by Russia. Having made that clear – are we… better off with the Russians on the other side of Ukraine? And the answer is ‘absolutely.'”
