How the Ukraine War Could End? We Might Have Some Clues

America matters. There could be no more dramatic lesson from the spectacle of seven European leaders—heads of government and state, the European Commission, and NATO—meeting with President Donald Trump, a man who they almost certainly privately despise.

Similar was the presence of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, dressing up to avoid a presidential dressing down like that incurred during his previous Oval Office visit.

Despite America’s really bad quarter century—the catastrophic Iraq debacle, mindless endless wars, squalid Biden incapacity, ongoing fiscal catastrophe, and unnatural Trumpian pageantry—the titans of Europe were inexorably drawn to the White House.

In the West, at least, there is still only one nation that really matters, irrespective of who leads its government. Countries which once ruled most of the earth remain but supplicants to an upstart country which began with a few disgruntled colonists transported to a distant new world. By begging for a Washington audience, the assorted grandees conceded their incapacity to run their own affairs, let alone much influence events beyond their own borders.

And they know that their ostentatious failure is a matter of choice. Europe dramatically outmatches Russia on virtually every measure of national power, other than military. Their much larger collective economy and population enable them to do whatever is necessary to protect their lands from any potential adversary. But for decades they failed to act. Only the hated Donald Trump was able to force them to publicly admit this uncomfortable truth.

Almost secondary was the subject of the meeting, ending the Russo-Ukraine war. Trump got several important issues right. For instance, that the combatants should focus on reaching a peace settlement rather than argue over a ceasefire. President Vladimir Putin openly refused the latter since ending the fighting without an agreement would relax Moscow’s military pressure on Ukraine and free the allies to resupply Kyiv, which then could revive the fight. Zelensky had also earlier rejected a ceasefire, since he wanted to battle on to liberate lost territory, including Crimea, occupied by Russia more than a decade ago. If the parties can reach an agreement, the ceasefire will come easily.

The president also recognized that the only realistic outcome is a compromise settlement, and one weighted toward Moscow. That means rejecting the standard European mantra, repeated with monotonous regularity: “A just and lasting peace that brings stability and security must respect international law, including the principles of independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and that international borders must not be changed by force.

The people of Ukraine must have the freedom to decide their future. The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities.” This European “solution” obviously is attractive, since Putin’s lawless invasion cannot be justified. Unfortunately, however, Russia is winning on the battlefield, and no one on the allied side has explained how Ukraine can overcome its widening manpower deficit to achieve victory.

Moreover, Trump apparently convinced Putin to trim his demands, even regarding territory, or so claims the administration. The Russian leader reportedly agreed to freeze military operations in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia provinces, leaving the remaining territory in Ukraine, and return occupied territory in the Kharkiv and Sumy regions. Other former red lines also appear to have been abandoned. Although the Ukrainians and other Europeans oppose yielding any land to Russia, reports that Moscow was relinquishing some if its claims shocked dedicated Russophiles, who assume the claims were false.

Wrote Simplicius the Thinker: “There are simply too many farfetched ‘stretches’ to imagine Russia conceding on them all, which includes things like demilitarization and deNazification which were not mentioned amongst the discussions. Lesser issues like the protection and codification of the Russian language in Ukrainian regions were mentioned by press outlets, which would imply the other issues were not brought up. This clearly seems a bridge too far.”

Trump is lso a that negotiation between the principal combatants should settle the details. Trump wants to bring Putin and Zelensky together, presumably for a visual to burnish his Nobel Peace Prize hopes. Trump also might envision a personal meeting as the best way to dispense with the boring minutia that inevitably will accompany a peace settlement to such a costly and destructive war. However, it would be better to deploy lower-level officials to first handle the critical details. Explained the Wall Street Journal: “The yawning chasm between Kyiv and Moscow would normally be narrowed before organizing a high-profile meeting between Putin and Zelensky.” Their summit then would be more symbolic than substantive, representing a commitment to reconciliation, however difficult that process would prove in practice.

Give Trump Credit on Ukraine, But…

Overall, Trump deserves credit for doing more in seven months than President Joe Biden did in the almost three years following the Russian invasion: try diplomacy, talk with Putin, and seek a modus vivendi to conclude the war.

Even so, the odds against success remain long, given manifold practical difficulties and internal opposition in both combatants as well as the roomful of de facto cobelligerents meeting with Trump. The Wall Street Journal bluntly warned that “the warring parties remain far apart on a peace agreement.” If Trump nevertheless is able to conclude the deal he will have demonstrated the importance of simply asking what the combatants want. The Russian president may turn out to be a more rational actor than most of the European leaders.

However, Trump failed in perhaps his most fundamental duty. In seeking a grand international triumph, followed by the much-coveted Nobel Peace Prize, Trump lost sight of America’s interest. He has agreed to some sort of security guarantee involving the US, though he has yet to enlighten the American people, who would be expected to pay the resulting financial and human price, about what he has in mind. Such a commitment is, of course, what the Europeans have enjoyed for decades, which helps explain why they always lagged so on military expenditures and capabilities. The only reason most of them ever did more was to pacify American officials when Washington whining got too loud, as with Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ valedictory speech, delivered just three weeks before he left office.

Nevertheless, Trump’s proposal began circulating last week, before his meeting with Putin. Reported the Washington Post: “For the first time publicly, he said he was open to the ‘possibility’ of security guarantees for Ukraine, ‘along with other Europe and other countries.’ He cautioned that such protections could not come through NATO.” (He also exhibited a strange new respect for the assembled Eurocrats, praising politicians he once insulted.) Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff explained that the security guarantee “means the US is potentially prepared to be able to give Article 5 security guarantees, but not from NATO.” Of even greater concern, when questioned about deploying American personnel, he said: “I think part of the discussion we’re gonna have Monday is exactly the specifics of what the Ukrainians feel they need.”

Nothing was said during the meetings to reassure Americans that they would not end up at war over Ukraine, something that first-term Trump and even Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, much derided by Trump, avoided by not guaranteeing Kyiv’s security. Trump promised: “We will give them very good protection and very good security.” He was also quoted as saying that “When it comes to security, there’s going to be a lot of help” and that European countries “are a first line of defense because they’re there, but we’ll help them out.”

What kind of “help,” exactly? Although deployment of American forces apparently did not come up yesterday, the New York Times’ Erica L. Green observed: “It is significant that President Trump didn’t outright rule out sending U.S. troops to Ukraine as part of a security guarantee that the U.S. would make in partnership with Europeans.” Trump continues to reject NATO membership, but how would sort-of NATO guarantees differ from NATO guarantees? Article 5 only mandates taking “such action as it deems necessary.” A sort-of NATO knock-off commitment could end up tougher, perhaps greatly so, creating a tripwire troop presence and promise to retaliate with full force.

With a Nobel possibly looming, Trump appears all-too-willing to sacrifice America’s fundamental interests, most importantly avoiding a war with nuclear-armed Russia, over interests, like Ukraine, which are not important, let alone vital for Americans. There is a reason that no NATO member, from the US to Luxembourg, advocated Kyiv’s inclusion after the George W. Bush administration pushed through the ill-thought promise to eventually add both Ukraine and Georgia. No one wanted to go to war over Ukraine. But now this president is proposing an equivalent which likely will suggest at least a presumed commitment to fight for Ukraine.

Despite doing much wrong, Trump has achieved much right. He might even be able to make the deal. However, if the price is yet another needless US military guarantee, this one against a nuclear power prepared for war over interests that it views as vital, then the price will be too high. When shouted by his most fervid supporters, “America First” seems simplistic, even almost unAmerican. Yet in truth putting the interests of Americans first is the necessary basis for any foreign policy which risks their liberties, prosperity, and lives.

“The Ukrainian people deserve peace,” declared Zelensky. They do. However, so do the American people. When it comes to Ukraine, ensuring that they are not dragged into another European conflict should remain President Trump’s highest priority.