Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

The Embassy

Art of the Peace Deal: How Donald Trump Can End the Ukraine War

T-72 Tank from Ukraine War
Russian T-72 tank from Ukraine War. Image Credit: Creative Commons.

Candidate Donald Trump promised to end the war between Russia and Ukraine expeditiously. We should take him at his word.

Ending the war can only mean proposing a deal that both parties accept. Both Putin and Zelensky have to view any proposal as meeting their needs. In addition, President Trump will want to emerge from the negotiation process as a winner; he certainly does not want to be saddled with any legacy like President Biden’s disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal

If Trump were seen as abandoning Ukraine, his credibility would be diminished. This is, therefore, not the route he will choose. On the contrary, he already has articulated a formula for success: peace through strength, peace in Ukraine through an assertion of American strength.

Deploying that strength means sending the right message to Putin. This should take place through discrete diplomatic channels rather than in headlines: walk softly but carry a big stick. In this case, the stick means the prospect of a significant escalation in the military hardware provided to Ukraine. President Trump should confront Putin with a plan to supply Ukraine with weaponry at least sufficient to cut off supply chains to Russia’s troops. Other specific military targets could be put into play, such as the security of the Russian Black Sea fleet. The point is not to take these steps but to threaten this escalation unless Russia withdraws from all Ukrainian territory: Ukraine has a right to a restoration of its territorial integrity.

That escalatory threat could frame the deal. Yet Putin is unlikely to respond to a threat that gives him nothing in return. The art of this deal requires identifying sufficient sweeteners that help Putin get to yes. Fortunately, a list of concessions can be offered to convince Putin to cut his losses and withdraw.

The historic Russian desire for access to the Black Sea is a fundamental driver behind the war.  This ambition could be addressed through an international agreement guaranteeing Russia unhindered passage in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. Moreover, Russia could be offered favorable terms for railroad and truck access to Ukraine’s Black Sea ports. Russia should not have to conquer Ukraine to benefit from commerce through the port of Odesa. 

A second component should address Russia’s dire economic situation. The longer the war goes on, the more Russia becomes the weaker junior partner in its relationship with China. This subordination cannot be comfortable for Putin. Instead, a deal to end the war could include, in addition to a lifting of sanctions,  an appropriately tailored trade arrangement with the U.S. For Putin, the prospect of economic improvement ought to be manna from heaven.

However, a U.S.-Russia trade agreement would also be very much in American interest as a vehicle to peel Russia away from China. The terms might, for example, shield  Russia from the Trump administration’s pending tariff policies. Imposing tariffs or lifting them can serve as tools to achieve political goals. 

Finally, there is an additional opportunity to persuade Putin directly. The International Criminal Court issued a warrant for his arrest in March 2023.  Even if he regards this as merely an annoyance, he would welcome a declaration from Washington dismissing ICC decisions. Washington could even commit to convincing allies to void the judgment on Putin and withdraw support from what is increasingly regarded as a rogue court, playing politics rather than meeting justice. 

A Ukraine Deal Won’t Come Easy

No doubt, such an exoneration of Putin would be a bitter pill to swallow in the West; he is doubtlessly responsible for the egregious crimes committed during the war. However, it is ultimately more important to end the war than to imagine the unlikely scenario of ever hauling Putin into a courtroom. If offering a full-throated dismissal of the validity of the ICC would help end the war quicker, it is a price worth paying. 

NLAW in Ukraine

Ukrainian marine with NLAW ATGM. Photo: Marine Command.

These broad outlines– Black Sea access, a trade agreement, and rejection of the ICC– need to be worked out in detail, where the devil always lies. In addition, a strategy to maintain the peace into the future must be formulated, whether with NATO membership for Ukraine or not. 

Yet President Trump has repeatedly expressed genuine concern with the human cost of the war, and he intends to end it. May he succeed.

About the Author: Russell A. Berman 

Russell A. Berman is the Walter A. Haas Professor in the Humanities at Stanford University and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He previously served as Senior Advisor on the Policy Planning Staff of the State Department. The views here are his own.

Written By

Russell A. Berman is the Walter A. Haas Professor in the Humanities, appointed in the departments of German Studies and Comparative Literature. He joined the Stanford faculty in 1979 and has received many awards, including a Mellon Faculty Fellowship at Harvard, an Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship in Berlin, the best book award from the German Studies Association, and in 1997 he was awarded the Bundesverdienstkreuz (Federal Service Cross) of the Federal Republic of Germany.

11 Comments

11 Comments

  1. Jim

    January 14, 2025 at 3:10 pm

    To an unknown extent, American munition stocks have been depleted (The President, Military, and selected Congressional Leaders know how much).

    It’s not clear we have the necessary munitions to flood the zone if Putin were not to agree to the demands attached to the threat of flooding the zone with military equipment (which we might not have).

    Say, we do… Ukraine has a manpower crisis, this is well reported across the media.

    It’s not clear flooding the zone would turn the tide of war… but it would alienate Putin and the Russians in a way, which could lead towards a possible General European War. Massive casualties in Ukraine… bases hit in Nato territory??

    And, Trump would own the war… this reminds me of the idea of “no negotiations unless there is a freeze.”

    If Putin walks away, it traps Trump into a position where he has to escalate to prove his strength & toughness.

    This is what war supporters want: Trump tricked, then cornered into taking over Biden’s war, by escalation, and his presidency is consumed by a foreign war.

    Because, if he is put (or puts himself) into a position where he has to escalate…

    Then, it’s Trump’s War.

    Biden is off the hook.

    That would be a singular mistake for Trump to make.

    No, the best path for Trump is to meet with Putin, hear what he has to say, face to face, digest it, and continue diplomatic dialogue with Russia.

    Time is of the essence, the longer the war goes on, the more likely Trump will be in a quagmire he didn’t make or is responsible for… but because of missteps promoted by war supporters, does, indeed, end up owning the war politically.

    A disaster for his domestic agenda.

    Trump’s closet & best advisors should be conscious of the above scenarios.

    Many people want Trump to fail.

    America can’t afford that.

    • I. Martin

      January 15, 2025 at 12:37 pm

      Trump is not in a great position, however, he is also filling the empty space that was Joe Biden. He has a lot more play than might be expected. Part of the issue is that Putin has not had an easy time with this war. This is a pro and a con. Putin wants this to end also, but he can’t walk away empty handed. As important as ending this conflict is how we end the conflict.

  2. pagar

    January 14, 2025 at 5:03 pm

    In the way and the How of the final ending to the biden-initiated ukraine conflict only one thing is needed with regard to the art of the deal.

    A very secret highly most secret one-on-one meeting between donald trump and vladimir putin.

    In that meeting trump would lay forward his plan for europe regarding germany, france, greenland and ukraine and the big fool zelenskyy.

    Putin in return shall provide his most genuine thoughts on donbass and the russian-speaking people in ukraine.

    And the fate of russian assets frozen by joe biden and his cronies.

    When the final word and parting handshake has been achieved the meeting immediately concludes.

    Then trump will announce his plan for peace in ukraine.

    A peace that will last for a thousand years. Or for whole of the coming millennium.

  3. N0N0

    January 14, 2025 at 7:48 pm

    In statecraft, LBJ and Jimmy Carter were both failures.

    Let’s hope Trump can do better.

  4. Sam

    January 15, 2025 at 9:57 am

    It seems the article overlooks some critical facts and makes questionable assumptions. For instance, the claim that Russia’s desire for access to the Black Sea is a driving factor in the war is misleading—Russia has always had access to the Black Sea through key ports like Novorossiysk, Sochi, and Tuapse, even when Crimea was under Ukrainian control. Their actual ambition is to remove the metaphorical gun pointed at their guts that Crimea under Ukraine represents, which is why they will never agree to leave it without a fight.

    The suggestion of an international agreement to guarantee Russia unhindered passage in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait is equally problematic. It disregards the devastation Russia has caused in Ukraine and the unlikelihood of Ukraine agreeing to such terms, given the circumstances. Even if such a deal were signed, it would face immediate resistance or sabotage, as seen in past examples like Nord Stream.

    Finally, the mention of the U.S. supplying munitions ignores the practical limitations of depleted stockpiles and the mixed results of previous aid. The overall point of this article is unclear and seems detached from both geography and the realities on the ground. Frankly, even a chatbot could have constructed a more grounded analysis.

  5. The Voice of Reason

    January 15, 2025 at 11:50 am

    Even the discussion of this would violate the Russian constitution as it presumes surrender of land Russia claims.

    This is not a superfluous law. Bilaws have been established to imprison any negotiator that even broaches the subject.

    Could Putin break Russian law? Probably. But his negotiators and staff could not.

    This is functionally a completely unworkable negotiating position and the author knows that.

    The author wants more war. The author wants escalation.

    The reason is simple- the two enemies of the author, Trump and Putin, would be made to fight each other with no possibility of either winning.

    Unfoetunately for the author, neither Putin nor Trump is that stupid.

  6. Lance Benson

    January 15, 2025 at 12:48 pm

    So much right about the intent of this proposal (to secure peace with the restorations of Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders), and so much wrong with the assessment of the means to accomplish it.

    It is the war which has made the Russian fleet threatened in the Black Sea (by a country which has no naval ships).

    Secure rail transport from Russia to Odessa is pretty worthless, since rail transport is so much more expensive than sea transport, and Russia has that and had it before the war.

    I’m not sure there are any real carrots to offer Russia in the event of the return of full Ukrainian sovereignty, other than the chance to stop hitting themselves in the head with their own hammer. Putin seems willing to continue to do that.

    I hope Trump will assure Russia of more pain if it does not end the war by withdrawing, but I don’t have confidence that he has the foresight to see how advantageous it is for the U.S. to do that.

  7. jai

    January 15, 2025 at 1:24 pm

    Trump just needs to disavowed any support for the Ukraine as being outside American sphere of national security interest! Additionally he should declare that Biden’s involvement there was in fact a foolish and illegal act. He could then still offer America’s good office to aid the warring parties to come to an agreement that ends the fighting.

  8. Andrew P

    January 15, 2025 at 1:43 pm

    Russia withdrawing from Ukraine is not going to happen. A cease-fire in place is going to be hard enough to accomplish, and is probably the most realistic outcome.

  9. marcjf

    January 15, 2025 at 3:01 pm

    Reading this opinion piece, and many others like it, – well it is my view that the authors severely misread the actual military situation and thus the likely political outcome. This is like Vietnam in late 1974. Those in the know want to put the inevitable collapse on Mr Trump, but really the fall has simply been delayed so it does not occur when the empty suit is “in charge”.There is no deal to be had here.

  10. Brian A Marks

    January 17, 2025 at 8:41 pm

    The good Professor Berman is delusional in his notion V. Putin desires “Black Sea access, a trade agreement, and rejection of the ICC”. Putin is seeing to reconstitute the Soviet Union. That was the whole point of the Ukraine incursion. Putin could not care less what is costs Russia the Russian people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement