The war in Ukraine continues with no clear resolution in sight. President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia.
The war in Ukraine has a direct impact on Americans. It’s time to prioritize America’s core national interests and bolster robust diplomacy that articulates the advantages of a free and open society. However, negotiating an end to the conflict presents a formidable challenge, requiring diplomatic finesse, political will, and solutions that address the core causes of the war.
With the geopolitical stakes high and U.S. foreign policy on the line, how should the new Trump administration approach this conflict? What role should Europe play? And if peace talks stall, what comes next for Ukraine and the broader international community?
We asked Emma Ashford, senior fellow with the Reimagining U.S. Grand Strategy program at the Stimson Center — a think-tank that promotes international security and shared prosperity through applied research and independent analysis, global engagement, and policy innovation — for her analysis on a path forward that embraces a realist and restrained approach to U.S. involvement in the conflict.
Trump promised to seek a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia to end the war. What challenges will he face in striking that deal?
It is increasingly clear that all parties to the war in Ukraine would benefit from either a pause in hostilities or a resolution to the conflict under some conditions. However, achieving even a temporary peace will not be easy. Retired Gen. Keith Kellogg has been tasked by the administration with attempting to find a settlement to the conflict; he will need not only to persuade both Kyiv and Moscow to come to the negotiating table, but also to address some of the underlying issues that caused the conflict in the first place if it is not to reoccur.
These are not, however, insurmountable obstacles. Ukraine is in a weak position as Russian forces continue to make consistent, gradual gains on the battlefield. Ukraine's primary constraint is not the supply of Western arms or money, but rather the constraints of manpower: Ukraine has lost significant numbers of troops, is smaller than Russia, and continues to struggle to mobilize manpower.
Russia, though in a stronger position, also has incentives to want this war ended. It is costly for Russia in lives, and further mobilization would impose some political costs on the Kremlin. Russia’s economy is adequate, but the impact of sanctions, inflation caused by the large quantity of funds funneled into Russia's military-industrial complex, and even the labor market hit of mobilization — are all costly. In short, both sides can likely be brought to the negotiating table by a committed effort.
Achieving a deal will be harder. Territory is, ironically, probably the easiest issue to resolve, as there is widespread consensus that the status quo — leaving Russia in control of the Ukrainian areas it holds — is the most likely outcome. Political issues, however, will be more challenging. How will a peace deal or simply a ceasefire be enforced? Will it require peacekeepers from Europe or the United Nations? Might restrictions upon armaments make it more difficult for Ukraine to defend itself in the future? And if Russia seeks sanctions relief, is that something the Trump administration can actually provide?
Congress has historically been strongly opposed to sanctions relief. Though there are no easy answers, the best approach for Kellogg’s team may be some kind of ceasefire that halts the fighting while longer-term issues are worked out.
Sign up for the Stand Together newsletter and get stories, ideas, and advice from changemakers to help you tackle America’s biggest problems.
Ukraine insists that any peace deal must include guarantees for its security from countries like the United States. What are some of the options on the table, and what sort of guarantees might make sense from America’s perspective (if any)?
One of the core political issues underlying this war is the question of Ukraine's alignment and Western security guarantees. The question of NATO membership and expansion to Ukraine was key in the run-up to the Russian invasion in February 2022, but the problem goes back at least as far as 2008, when the George W. Bush administration suggested that a path to NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine was inevitable.
Given the course of the war — and political developments in Europe and America — almost no one believes that NATO membership is a viable prospect for Ukraine anymore. The risks of doing so are simply too high. NATO membership would make the U.S. responsible for defending Ukraine and risk dragging us into a future war.
Yet the Zelenskyy government in Kyiv has insisted that it requires Western security guarantees to prevent the war from restarting. As a result, many discussions in European capitals are focused on alternative guarantees, particularly whether non-NATO bilateral or multilateral security guarantees can be made to Ukraine that would offer them protection. European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron clearly envision a European-led security force in Ukraine as part of the eventual peace.
Yet such a guarantee would still be problematic from the U.S. point of view:
- First, European states aren't necessarily capable of accomplishing this mission. Even if European states can furnish the necessary troops, they’d still have to rely on U.S. military enablers such as intelligence and reconnaissance assets, or logistical support.
- Second, it raises questions about what political scientists call “chain ganging.” If European allies found their troops under attack in Ukraine, would this then obligate an American response? Would NATO’s Article 5 commitment then apply? The prospect of being pulled into a conflict remains high.
In short, the only form of security guarantee that would make sense from an American point of view is a commitment to send weapons or funds in the case of a future conflict. This is exactly what the United States has done over the last two years and would not obligate any actual involvement in a future war. Though potentially expensive for American taxpayers down the line, this could contribute to Ukraine's ability to defend itself and thereby prevent such conflicts from happening.
It's also worth noting, though, that there are other alternatives. A Western security guarantee is one way to deter future conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but it is not the only way. A well-armed Ukraine capable of defending itself could deter Russia from future war. Or a more ambitious political settlement that seeks to address some of the core underlying causes of the conflict could do the same. In short, the Trump administration's negotiators should not feel that they are limited only to security guarantees when considering this question — American interests might be better served by some other option.
If Gen. Kellogg and the negotiating team don’t make any progress and the war continues, what happens next? How should the U.S. respond?
This is a difficult question and is one of the reasons why the United States hasn't moved towards resolving this conflict in the last few years. That experience, however, should offer a salutary lesson for policymakers. Many in the Biden administration were wary of seeking peace in Ukraine for fear that this would yield a bad deal. But since that time, Ukraine's negotiating position has substantially weakened. The risk remains that if the war continues, the situation will deteriorate further.
This speaks to the importance of finding a deal that can at least halt or freeze this conflict at a reasonable cost, rather than seeking a perfect, but implausible deal. I firmly believe that this is possible. If no deal can be reached, however, and the war were to continue, then the next priority of the Trump administration should be to follow through on their commitment to voters, and push European allies to pick up much of the burden for this war from the United States.
This burden-shifting could take the form of money or arms sent directly to Ukraine; indeed, European states have stepped up their direct commitments substantially since the early days of the conflict. But it should also take the form of burden-shifting within NATO, decreasing the costs for U.S. forces in Europe of deterring Russia as the conflict continues.
Ultimately, European states and the European Union are far closer to this conflict than the United States; they have a much stronger interest in seeing Ukraine continue to thrive. A peace deal is the best way — at this moment in time — to best secure the interests of Ukraine, Europe, and the United States.
The Stimson Center is supported by Stand Together Trust, which provides funding and strategic capabilities to innovators, scholars, and social entrepreneurs to develop new and better ways to tackle America’s biggest problems.
Learn more about Stand Together’s foreign policy efforts and explore ways you can partner with us.
U.S. military presence in Iraq no longer serves a vital strategic purpose.
The MISSION Act was a huge win to empower veterans. But its execution by the VA has been lackluster.
Edrys Leyva’s journey from escaping Cuba’s regime to Navy veteran and health care advocate.
The Ukraine War is at an impasse. Here’s what you need to know.