Four Scenarios for Lasting Peace in Ukraine

(Patria) - US President Donald Trump advocates for a peaceful resolution to the Russian war in Ukraine, which has been ongoing for three years. Voice of America examined several approaches recently put forward by "think tank" organizations with the aim of achieving lasting peace in the war.

The Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) plan, titled "How to Win: A Seven-Point Plan for Sustainable Peace in Ukraine," calls for a "strategy of maximum pressure to bring Russia to the negotiating table in good faith".

Recommendations for the US and its allies:

• Provide immediate, unflagging material support to Ukraine, with the aim of exhausting the Russian military and thereby improving Ukraine's negotiating position;

• Increase sanctions on Russian financial institutions and entities in the energy sector, release frozen Russian assets to support Ukrainian defense and reconstruction, and impose secondary sanctions to increase economic pressure not only on Russia but also on the authoritarian regimes of China, Iran, and North Korea.

CEPA states that "Ukraine and Europe" must be involved in any peace negotiations with Russia, that the US should support a "coalition of the willing led by the European Union" to implement any "ceasefire line with international forces," and that "European allies must make consistent and as rapid progress as possible towards Ukraine's accession to the European Union".

One of the report's authors, Catherine Sendak, CEPA's Director for Transatlantic Defense and Security, told VOA's Ukrainian service that the US should only enter into negotiations with Russia after "equipping Ukraine with the strongest possible means" and using its most potent "diplomatic tools".

She added that the issue of Ukraine's potential NATO membership should not be included in talks with Russia. "Discussing it with a non-NATO member... I don't believe it's useful for any negotiations," Sendak said, noting that it would give Russia "veto power, if you will, over... choosing members to join the alliance or not".

Josh Rudolph, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund and head of its Transatlantic Democracy Working Group, worked on Russian and Ukrainian policy at the National Security Council during the first Trump administration.

Last month, he offered policy recommendations to the current Trump administration on ending the conflict in Ukraine.

Some of the recommendations:

• Approach (Russian President Vladimir) Putin from a position of strength. While Putin appeared strong and capable at the beginning of Trump's first term, his mistake in Ukraine has weakened him. As the dominant partner in these relations, Trump, not Putin, can set the terms of negotiation;

• Know when to walk away. The critical moment in negotiations will come when Putin refuses to make major concessions. Trump must be prepared to walk away;

• Combine sanctions with lower oil and gas prices. The best way to make Putin realize that pressure in Ukraine would lead to a catastrophe for his rule is financial pressure on Russia. Leveraging his warmer relationship with Saudi Arabia than (former President Joe) Biden enjoyed, Trump should flood the fossil fuel market, making sanctions sustainable, starving the Russian war machine, and creating risks for political stability in Moscow.

Rudolph also recommended that Ukraine be further armed - give them "all $300 billion of frozen Russian assets," make Europe "pay more for weapons," and provide 100,000 soldiers as "peacekeepers," allow "American companies to rebuild Ukraine," and invite Ukraine to join NATO if Putin refuses to accept "reasonable" terms for a peace agreement.

Rudolph told Voice of America that Trump could convince those in the US who are now skeptical about continuing to arm Ukraine that, as part of a peace deal, it would benefit American workers.

– (He) tells them, OK, now we have a good deal, secured by rare earth (minerals), the war is over, and to maintain it, we'll need to ensure a continuous flow of good old American-made weapons, which, by the way, opens all these American jobs, plants, and factories across the red states – Rudolph says.

In a report titled "Dollars and Sense: America's Interest in a Ukrainian Victory," Elaine McCusker, Frederick W. Kagan, and Richard Sims of the American Enterprise Institute examined the cost of ceasing support for Ukraine, concluding that it would lead to Ukraine's defeat and Russia's further advance into Europe, forcing an increased US presence in Europe.

Some of the report's conclusions:

• Supporting Ukraine to win against Russia is in the best interest of the United States;

• A world in which Russia prevails would be more dangerous and expensive for America – requiring an increase of $808 billion in defense spending over five years;

• Alternatively, an increased and accelerated multinational commitment to Ukraine and the conclusion of the war in the near future would result in a free Ukraine with a modernized and tested army and a successful industrial base, helping to 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 adventurism in their regions and allowing Russia to rebuild its military by gaining additional human and material resources within Ukraine.

– A Russian takeover of Ukraine would send a wave of refugees into Europe, further destabilizing the continent. They have committed crimes against the Ukrainian population in the occupied territories.

I would expect it to be worse as the Russians move further west and as they enter the most traditionally anti-Russian, pro-Western areas of western Ukraine. The horrors will be indescribable – Kagan said.

He adds that increased aid to Ukraine will turn it into a bulwark for European peace and security – a country with a battle-tested army and a rapidly developing military industry – allowing the US to focus on other regions.

The Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project" includes policy recommendations concerning Russia's war in Ukraine.

It notes that the American conservative movement is divided on Ukraine – one side supports Kyiv, the other favors withdrawal – and offers a middle path.

Among Project 2025's recommendations:

• Regarding Ukraine, continued US engagement must be fully paid for, limited to military aid (while European allies handle Ukraine's economic needs), and have a clearly defined national security strategy that does not endanger American lives;

• Regardless of their views, all sides agree that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is unjust and that the Ukrainian people have the right to defend their homeland. The conflict has seriously weakened Putin's military strength and boosted NATO's unity and its importance for European nations;

• The next conservative president has a generational opportunity to bring a solution to foreign policy tensions and 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, responsible for its defense and foreign policy team, told Voice of America that it is in the US interest to have a free and independent Ukraine that can defend itself.

– Practically speaking, a united Europe can defend itself, and the United States can defend Europe if Ukraine is occupied by Russia. Now, having said that, are we much, much better off with the Russians on the other side of Ukraine? And the answer is 'absolutely' – Carafano added.