Trump’s team lacks clear plan to end war in Ukraine

Trump has officially assumed the presidency of the United States. While it is still difficult to predict the exact direction of his administration’s policy toward Ukraine, certain conclusions can already be drawn from what is known so far.

First and foremost, it is evident that Trump recognizes the importance and complexity of the international challenges facing his country. This is why he is appointing fairly straightforward experts to key foreign policy positions — professionals who easily pass Senate hearings and receive bipartisan support.

For instance, the incoming Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is a co-author of a bill blocking the U.S. withdrawal from NATO. He has also publicly called Putin a “murderer” and a “war criminal.” Along with the future Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, Rubio recently emphasized the need to strengthen sanctions against Russia, including targeting its oil companies (such as Rosneft, which is not currently under sanctions). Bessent has taken an especially tough stance, stating he fully supports increased sanctions, particularly on Russian oil and gas companies, “until Russia agrees to negotiations.”

Keith Kellogg, whom Trump has appointed as Special Representative for Ukraine, stated last week that the new president would not make concessions to Putin. Kellogg also expressed an ambitious goal to end the war within 100 days.

Trump himself became memorable for recounting his interactions with Putin during his first presidency. In one interview, he recalled warning the Russian leader during his first term: “If you go after Ukraine… I'm going to hit you right in the middle of fricking Moscow.” While Putin reportedly couldn’t recall such words being spoken, it is unlikely he forgot them. On that occasion, Putin backed off, which is understandable given that, with Trump, no one can guarantee it was merely a bluff.

Expectations for Trump’s second term remain high — both within America and abroad. However, despite strong experts in key positions for Ukraine, his team still lacks a clear plan for ending the war in Ukraine. The options being discussed include freezing the war along the current front line and vetoing Ukraine’s NATO membership. However, these initiatives lack specific details.

Control over the front line, which stretches over 1,000 kilometers, would require at least 100,000 military personnel. It is clear that this cannot involve U.N. peacekeepers, as deploying them would require a U.N. Security Council resolution, where Russia holds veto power. At the same time, deploying a limited NATO force in Ukraine would be perceived by Russia as direct NATO intervention in the war, with all the ensuing consequences.

As for vetoing Ukraine’s NATO membership, this essentially relies on personal promises and does not bind the next U.S. administration. Thus, it is unclear how such a restriction could work in the long term.

It is evident that Ukraine is entering a new phase in its history. What U.S. policy toward the country will look like remains to be seen. However, it is already clear that the outcomes of the war and the realization of Western support will depend largely on the decisions and actions of Ukraine and its people.

Source

About the author: Mykola Kniazhytskyi, journalist, member of the Ukrainian parliament.

The editorial board does not always share the views expressed by authors of blogs or columns.