Donald Trump has said he would end the war if he wins the White House. But at what cost?
Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, “realists” have been warning that Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression may be misguided. They argue that a compromise peace could be the only way to secure the country’s future, even if it means conceding territory to Russia. These advocates believe that while Ukraine may hold on to the majority of its land, the terms would likely involve significant compromises, especially regarding Ukraine’s security arrangements.
The central argument from these realists is that Ukraine should accept it can never join NATO, a key issue that has fueled much of the conflict. In a recent letter published in the Financial Times, prominent figures including former UK and US ambassadors to Moscow advocated for such a peace, suggesting that Russia would only require promises not to annex more Ukrainian territory. The letter proposes that the US initiate negotiations with Russia on a new security pact that could protect the interests of both Ukraine and Russia. However, the specifics of how such an agreement would work remain unclear.
The concept of peace through compromise has become a contentious issue. Some see it as a pragmatic way forward, recognizing the limitations of Ukraine’s military position and the potential for a protracted war with devastating consequences. Others, however, view it as capitulation to Russian expansionism and a betrayal of Ukrainian sovereignty. As the war continues, these opposing views will likely continue to clash, influencing both the course of the conflict and future diplomatic efforts.
Donald Trump, in particular, has presented himself as a potential peacemaker, suggesting that he could end the war if he were to win the White House. However, his proposed peace plan raises critical questions about the cost of such an outcome. Would ending the war mean sacrificing Ukrainian territorial integrity? Would it involve making concessions that Ukraine has thus far refused to accept? These questions highlight the complexity of finding a peace that is acceptable to all parties involved, particularly when the future of Ukraine’s sovereignty and security remains in question.
The path to peace remains unclear, and while some continue to call for compromise, the challenges of achieving a settlement that satisfies both Ukraine’s territorial integrity and Russia’s security concerns seem daunting. Whether Trump or any other leader can broker such an agreement remains to be seen.
