Donald Trump said he could end the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours of taking office. He is now calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Ukraine and the start of negotiations. However, history shows that what cannot be achieved on the battlefield is unlikely to be achieved at the negotiating table. An immediate end to the war in Ukraine would be a double-edged sword for the United States under the current circumstances. Russia occupies significant areas of Ukraine, including Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and parts of Zaporizhzhia, which is approximately 18% of Ukraine’s territory. Ukraine has entered the Russian regions of Belgorod and Bryansk, which are estimated to be only less than 1% of the total area of Russia. How can both sides achieve their goal at the negotiating table?
Trump’s special envoy Keith Kellogg is proposing an end to the war by halting arms shipments to Ukraine if it refuses to participate in peace talks – and increasing arms shipments to Ukraine if Russia fails to do the same. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has suggested the possibility of negotiating a ceasefire with Russia, suggesting that the situation in the occupied territories could be dealt with later. This shows Ukraine’s depressed state under various pressures. Russia is open to peace talks but unlikely to make a major deal with Ukraine.
Despite the extensive support of NATO, sufficient military resources such as ammunition and air defense systems were not provided so that Ukraine could effectively resist Russian advances and produce decisive results in strategic attacks due to unclear strategic objectives and effective implementation methods.
The sanctions imposed by the US and its allies did not hurt the Russian economy as intended; instead, Russia’s economy grew by 3.1% in the third quarter of 2024, and its national debt remains at 14.6% of GDP—about the same level as when the war began in 2022. In 2023, Russia spent 160 billion dollars on military needs, which is about 40% of its budget. By 2025, Russia has already allocated 13.5 billion rubles (more than 145 billion dollars) for national defense, which represents 32.5% of the budget.
With support from North Korea, Iran, China, and other countries, Russia is likely to continue its efforts on Ukrainian soil. In contrast, Ukraine is unlikely to achieve a decisive victory in the short term. If its allies continue with the current strategy while reducing financial aid, Ukraine risks depleting its resources and escalating the conflict to an impasse, which could leave it at a disadvantage during negotiations.
Without a doubt, a quick stop would help stop other casualties and bring much-needed relief to the people affected by the conflict. It may also reduce the immediate burden of supporting Ukraine militarily and financially, freeing up resources for domestic priorities and dealing with other international challenges, especially dealing with China’s challenges. However, a quick ceasefire in terms of the battlefield map may benefit the US’s adversaries—the authoritarian regimes. First, it would strengthen Russia’s control over the occupied territories, allow Moscow to win a few victories and strengthen support at home. Such an outcome rewards local violence and undermines international norms.
Second, it could weaken the US’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, showing adversaries that aggression can be successful if sustained long enough. European allies may interpret the ceasefire as a sign of a wavering of US resolve, leading to a split within NATO and a weakening of transatlantic unity. Allies in Asia, including Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, may question the credibility of US security commitments in the region.
Third, China has been closely watching the West’s response to the Ukraine crisis, focusing on the cohesion of alliances, the impact of discipline, and the strength of military support. A freeze in the war would show the West’s limited resolve and suggest that local aggression can reap lasting benefits. This reinforces Beijing’s belief that the international community will question military intervention in Taiwan and encourages China to change the status quo on the Taiwan Strait, believing it can control economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure.
Fourth, immediate cessation of hostilities does not guarantee long-term peace. The lack of a comprehensive peace agreement leaves unresolved issues, and simply prolongs the hostilities, making the prospect of lasting peace non-existent. Historically, frozen conflicts such as those in Georgia’s South Ossetia and Moldova’s Transnistria have fostered long-term instability, enabling aggressors to consolidate control over occupied territories and exercise power in affected regions. The lesson of Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014 shows that tolerating the aggressor only encourages further expansion of their ambitions.
Instead of an immediate ceasefire agreement, it is necessary to continue to support Ukraine in regaining its territory by changing the current strategy before reaching any ceasefire agreement. Historical patterns show that successful territorial recapture often requires strengthening military power before engaging in peace negotiations. A ceasefire without the necessary restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty risks a legitimate Russian invasion. A successful invasion of Ukraine could not only improve Ukraine’s negotiating power but also serve as a powerful deterrent against future territorial ambitions of other hegemonic powers around the world.
The United States will not compromise America’s national interests when brokering a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia. However, it will be a very challenging task for any American president to make a peace agreement at this time because the agreement must uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty and internationally recognized borders, be consistent with US support for an international law-based system, and ensure equality between the two sides instead of rewarding violence. they are from Russia. It should strengthen US-European relations instead of undermining collective unity, adhere to the principles of US foreign policy that have long prioritized political gains, and improve the image of the US as a reliable world leader. If not, ending the war immediately could harm US national interests in the long run and directly promote the ambitions of the aggressors around the world.
Further Studies in E-International Relations
Source link
