Putin's weakest point and the key to ending the war: insights from the West on Trump's plans for Ukraine.
Soon, Donald Trump will officially take office as the President of the United States, receiving a full mandate to address both domestic and foreign issues facing America. As he announced, the White House will focus particularly on resolving the conflict in Ukraine.
International Observer of the "Telegraph", Olga Kirillova analyzed what is being written in the West regarding Trump’s potential actions.
Trump Aims to be a Peacemaker
Experts from the American Council on Foreign Relations, Michael Froman and Charles Kupchan write that the ultimate goal for President-elect Trump should be a just peace in Ukraine.
"When Donald Trump seeks to facilitate a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, he must recognize that it is in his own political interest to continue providing significant support to the Ukrainians and to only agree to terms that ensure a sovereign and secure Ukraine. Otherwise, Vladimir Putin—and others—will sense weakness," the article states.
According to the experts, Trump should refrain from declaring an end to aid for Kyiv and persuade the "typically compliant" Republican Party that ongoing support for Ukraine is key to achieving a lasting ceasefire and ultimately defeating Kremlin efforts.
"Any other outcome would pose a significant threat to U.S. interests worldwide and to Trump's status as a global leader."
If Ukraine's defense collapses, "the sight of Russian forces capturing more territory, with Russian tanks potentially rolling into Kyiv, would shatter Trump's hopes of being perceived as a great peacemaker. Instead, he would face his own version of Afghanistan," the authors argue.
A conquered Ukraine would represent a victory not only for Russia but also for China, Iran, and North Korea.
"If Trump loses Ukraine, it will further embolden America's enemies and undermine the strength of the U.S. and the durability of its alliances. A bad deal for Ukraine is a bad deal for Trump," Froman and Kupchan assert.
However, achieving an agreement that ensures Ukraine's security may prove more challenging than the President-elect thinks.
"Dividing territories is the easiest part. Who will control a given territory will be determined by the positioning of forces at the time of the ceasefire. The front line will likely become the new border between Ukraine and about 20% of territory occupied by Russian troops.
But Russia is unlikely to stop there. Putin may demand Ukraine's neutrality and limits on its armed forces, as he did in 2022. Trump must understand that these conditions are unacceptable, as they would leave Ukraine defenseless and vulnerable. Regardless of whether Ukraine becomes a NATO member or receives other security guarantees, Trump cannot allow Putin to veto its geopolitical choices.
Putin may also insist on formal U.S. recognition of the occupied territories of Ukraine as part of Russia and the lifting of Western sanctions against Moscow. Again, Trump cannot allow this, as it would legitimize Russia's forceful annexation of another country's territory," the experts believe.
They argue that Trump must realize he cannot broker a deal with Putin without the support of America's European allies. Regardless of his views on the European Union, he needs a strong, secure, and united Europe as a reliable partner.
"A divided transatlantic alliance and a fractured EU would leave the U.S. without a strong European partner, necessary not only to counter Russia but also to ensure stability in an increasingly chaotic world."
How to Bring Putin to the Negotiating Table
The President of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), Alina Polyakova, in an article for Foreign Affairs, argues that Donald Trump needs more leverage to bring Putin to the negotiating table.
"Trump's second White House is well-prepared to implement a strategy that allows for just that: a campaign of maximum pressure. During his first term, Trump employed such an approach against Iran. Now, to achieve peace and restore U.S. global leadership in the face of rising authoritarian aggression, he must apply a similar strategy towards Russia," the author writes.
She reminds us that Iran's militant ambitions were curtailed through a combination of aggressive, organized U.S. economic pressure via sanctions and military and covert actions by Israel aimed at countering Tehran's regional proxies—Hamas and Hezbollah.
"Russia is not Iran: among the significant differences are its larger economy and substantial nuclear arsenal. But the Iranian case offers a lesson: economic pressure combined with decisive military action and coordination with allies can work."
Polyakova notes that the Trump administration should not miss the moment of Moscow's weakness. The Russian armed forces are under increasing strain: the Kremlin has already deployed about 50% of its forces for the war in Ukraine and is losing an average of 1,500 soldiers a day.
Meanwhile, the Russian economy is approaching a tipping point after nearly three years of rampant military spending. The country's central bank has raised interest rates by more than 20% in an attempt to curb inflation, as the ruble has fallen to its lowest levels in years.
It is projected that the Russian economy will grow by only 0.5-1.5% in 2025, compared to 3.6% in 2024. American and other Western sanctions are also exerting pressure. In this context, the expert calls for striking Moscow "where it hurts the most."
First, tighten economic sanctions against the Russian banking and financial sector. In early 2024, the Biden administration imposed sanctions on Gazprombank, the country's largest bank, as well as more than 50 financial institutions—this practice should be extended to all Russian banks.
Secondly, the Trump administration could use sanctions to penalize Chinese companies directly supplying military equipment to Russia, as well as Chinese financial institutions providing loans to Russian banks.
"Such restrictions are particularly effective as they force companies outside Russia or other countries doing business with Russia to choose between Washington and Moscow—most will prefer to maintain access to the large American market rather than the shrinking Russian one," the expert opines.
However, financial sector sanctions alone are not enough. The bulk of the Russian budget revenues, which fuel the country's military economy, comes from oil and gas exports.
"Russian oil suppliers have largely escaped U.S. sanctions due to concerns about price hikes for Washington's European allies. This needs to change; the Trump administration should expand sanctions to include Russian oil suppliers and their subsidiaries, as it did in 2020 when it imposed measures against the state oil company Rosneft, which did business in Venezuela.
The United States will have to take the initiative and push its European allies to make difficult choices due to the likely rise in energy prices that Europeans will have to pay," Polyakova suggests.
At the same time, the EU's own policy of limiting Russian oil imports has failed to prevent it from reaching the European market. Moscow has simply resorted to using "shadow fleets" in the black market, which continue to supply oil to European countries.
"Europe finds itself in a position where it is financing the very war it claims to oppose. The solution is clear: Europe must stop buying Russian gas or poorly disguised versions coming from third parties like Azerbaijan, and instead invest in developing its infrastructure to be able to purchase more liquefied natural gas, particularly from the United States."
Separately, Polyakova emphasizes the importance of maximizing Ukraine's armament. This includes providing Kyiv with Patriot air defense systems, long-range ATACMS missiles, and HIMARS systems, "which Ukraine can use to defend against Russian airstrikes and to go on the offensive if the opportunity arises."
"Moreover, the Trump administration must make it clear that further Russian escalation could provoke actions that would ultimately go against Russian interests, such as inviting Ukraine into NATO."
Additionally, Donald Trump could "correct the mistakes of Biden's policy," which was too fearful of escalation from Russia. Among other things, he could support the plan initiated by France and Poland to create a European "coalition of the willing" to send a peacekeeping mission to Ukraine.
By collaborating with allies and partners worldwide, the U.S. must also act to suppress Russia's defense industrial sector. Moscow is incapable of independently producing all the necessary components for manufacturing and transporting military equipment. America can use incentives or the threat of sanctions against countries and companies helping to meet the Kremlin's needs.
"The most pressing task is for the U.S. to establish a position of strength in its relations with Russia, which will ultimately compel Moscow to make compromises and send a clear signal to China, Iran, and North Korea…
A positive outcome will resonate far beyond Europe: amidst growing geopolitical instability, achieving lasting peace in Ukraine will send a strong signal not only to America's adversaries but to the entire world that America has returned," concludes Alina Polyakova.
Activate NATO
International relations expert Stephen Blake expresses the opinion that the only way for Donald Trump to succeed is to refine the Biden administration's policy of supporting Ukraine.
"Adhering to this policy will continue to apply pressure on Putin, and if