Perspective – Five Scenarios for the Ukraine War Under the Trump Presidency

All wars, regardless of their length or nature, eventually end. Since the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, many predictions have emerged, many of which are still very unlikely as the war has dragged on longer than expected. The election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States points to a possible change in the policy of the United States in reducing support for Ukraine. Additionally, Ukraine’s use of US missiles and Russian retaliatory missiles represents a serious escalation in the war. Recent developments require updated conditions.

Scholars offer various theories on how wars end. Clausewitz says they end when political goals are no longer viable or unattainable in the long run. Iklé highlights the need for leaders to make tough decisions despite the fear of appearing weak in solving problems. Rose emphasizes the importance of clear post-war planning for a lasting peace to end the war. Wendt argues that wars truly end when enemies no longer see each other as enemies, and Mearsheimer suggests the role of changing power in determining and mutual recognition of the importance of war.

To predict the end of the war in Ukraine, it is important to understand the intentions of each side. From the beginning, Russia’s intentions were unclear—did it intend to conquer all or parts of Ukraine, expand its borders, or gain leverage in negotiations with the West? At first, Russia seemed more confident, but as the resistance in Ukraine grew and caused costs, its goals changed, and Russia is now more open to negotiations. Currently, it is mainly interested in territorial gains, keeping Ukraine neutral, and preventing NATO from getting directly involved.

Ukraine’s goals are simple: territorial integrity and future NATO membership. Although returning confiscated land is among the goals, it can be very difficult. It also wants continued support for NATO during the war and aims for membership afterwards, although it sees its negotiating power as limited. The final agreement will largely depend on Russia, the US, and its allies. For the latter two, the most important things are to protect the territory of Ukraine while preventing the war from spreading or involving them directly.

Under the Trump administration, the US is expected to provide less support to Ukraine. The continued intensification of attacks from both sides could be seen as strategic moves to gain leverage in negotiations before US support wanes. Unless an unexpected event occurs, such as a regime change or nuclear weapons exchange, before Trump’s term, the following are some of the most likely scenarios, listed in descending order of probability.

First, the situation where the reluctance of the Trump administration to continue supporting Ukraine is forcing Russia and Ukraine to sit at the negotiating table. Recently, both Putin and Zelenskyy have shown interest in this. In this situation, it is unlikely that Russia will return the occupied territories, as this will cross the red line for its leadership. Meanwhile, Ukraine is expected to secure some kind of security guarantee. As both sides felt pressure to make a deal, Ukraine was agreed to be a neutral zone between NATO and Russia. Accepting this solution would stop the war, allow Russia to save face by achieving its goal of keeping NATO off its borders, keep Ukraine an independent country, and ultimately allow NATO to maintain its credibility by preventing Russia from fully conquering Ukraine. However, the long-term sustainability of this is likely to be questionable, as Ukrainians may feel compelled to choose sides.

Second, it is possible that the conflict will reach a dead end. The withdrawal of the US will lead to the loss of motivation of its allies to continue support and the loss of incoming resources for Ukraine. In this situation, while Europe remains committed to the defense of Ukraine, the ongoing war is becoming undesirable for European countries. On the other hand, Russia is achieving some important military objectives and is determined to prevent a possible war, as it has secured the occupied territories. If a peace agreement were to be signed, a comprehensive peace agreement would not be reached due to conflicting interests. Theoretically, Ukraine will not be able to join NATO, which is in line with Russia’s interests. The conflict will remain stagnant and unresolved, opening the door for future growth. However, this situation will pose important domestic challenges to the Russian leadership, as they will have to justify the loss of thousands of people due to limited territorial gains and their inability to end the war they started.

In the third scenario, a significant reduction in US and European support would also lead to the defeat of Ukraine. In this situation, while Ukraine continues to ask for help, European countries are gradually losing motivation, leading to growing divisions between them. This change will give Russia a huge advantage, enabling it to seize more territory and indirectly exercise political control over Ukraine. Although the complete defeat of Ukraine remains unpopular—and undesirable for Russia, as it would lead to direct borders with NATO members such as Romania and Poland—Ukraine risks becoming a satellite state like Belarus. This situation will further weaken NATO in the long run, which may prompt other member states to rethink their commitment to the alliance.

Another scenario would be that the US withdrawal does not involve a loss of commitment to European countries, since the war directly affects them geographically. However, such an escalation could prolong the conflict, eventually leading to European intervention to prevent Russia’s advance. This situation could lead to an all-out war between NATO and Russia. Alternatively, the two sides may increase tensions by using brinkmanship, repeatedly showing a willingness to use nuclear weapons. This tense situation could lead to a direct conflict between NATO and Russia, which, while highly unlikely at the moment, is still a possibility.

Finally, in the same structure of the US withdrawal in the previous situation, Europe strengthening its support for Ukraine may find Russia capable of supporting military efforts for a long time, supported by like-minded states like North Korea, China, and Iran. However, Russia may end up under pressure due to economic and military limitations and therefore lose its autonomy. This loss of power will give Ukraine a huge advantage in negotiations, which could lead to the return of the occupied territories. Ultimately, this could lead to Ukraine’s membership in NATO. However, for this result to happen, the war will have to last a very long time.

Predicting the outcome of a war is inherently complex because of the multitude of factors involved, many of which are beyond the control of either party. This complexity presents a high level of uncertainty, and, at times, challenges created by the ideas of the end of war. Nevertheless, based on the information available about the conflict in Ukraine and taking information from the previous policy of the foreign policy of Donald Trump, the situations described above represent some of the most plausible solutions. These conditions depend on the dynamics of the country’s dynamics, internal political pressures, and strategies used by Ukraine and Russia, as well as international actors. Understanding these variables emphasizes the importance of continuous analysis and dynamic methods in examining the trajectory of these conflicts.

Further Studies in E-International Relations