Four scenarios for securing peace in Ukraine
WASHINGTON — 
U.S. President Donald Trump is pushing for a peaceful resolution to Russia’s now three-year full-scale war in Ukraine. VOA examined several approaches floated by think tanks recently aimed at achieving a lasting peace to the war.

Maximum pressure strategy

A plan by the Center for European Policy Analysis, or CEPA, titled “How to Win: A Seven-Point Plan for Sustainable Peace in Ukraine,” calls for “a maximum pressure strategy to bring Russia to the negotiating table in good faith.”

It proposes that the U.S. and its allies:

“Should provide immediate materiel support to Ukraine without caveats, aiming to wear down Russia’s military and thereby improve Ukraine’s negotiating position.”
“Should increase sanctions on Russian financial institutions and energy sector entities, release frozen Russian assets to support Ukrainian defense and reconstruction and enact secondary sanctions to intensify economic pressure not only on Russia but also on the authoritarian regimes of China, Iran, and North Korea.”

CEPA says that “Ukraine and Europe” must be included in any peace talks with Russia, that the U.S. should support “a European-led coalition of the willing” to enforce any “ceasefire line with an international force,” and that “European allies must make consistent and as rapid as possible progress toward Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.”

One of the report’s authors, Catherine Sendak, CEPA’s director for transatlantic defense and security, told VOA’s Ukrainian service that the United States should enter talks with Russia only having “equipped Ukraine with the strongest possible means” and using its toughest “diplomatic tools.”

She added that the issue of Ukraine’s possible membership in NATO should not be included in talks with Russia. “To discuss that with a non-NATO member … I don’t believe it is advantageous to any negotiation,” Sendak said, noting that it would give Russia “veto power, if you will, over … choosing members to join the alliance or not.”

Negotiating tactics

Josh Rudolph, a German Marshall Fund senior fellow and head of its Transatlantic Democracy Working Group, worked on Russian and Ukrainian policy at the National Security Council during the first Trump administration.

Last month, he offered policy recommendations to the current Trump administration on ending the Ukraine conflict.

Among them:

“Approach [Russian President Vladimir] Putin from a position of strength. Whereas Putin looked tough and capable at the outset of Trump’s first term, his blunder in Ukraine has left him diminished. … As the dominant partner in this relationship, Trump, not Putin, can set negotiating terms.”
“Know when to walk away. A critical moment in the negotiations will come when Putin refuses to make major concessions. Trump must be prepared to walk away.”
“Combine sanctions with lower oil and gas prices. The best way to make Putin to see that pressing on in Ukraine would spell disaster for his rule is to pressure Russia financially. … Harnessing his warmer relationship with Saudi Arabia than [former President Joe] Biden enjoyed, Trump should flood the fossil fuel market, which would make the sanctions sustainable, starve Russia’s war machine, and generate political stability risks in Moscow.”

Rudolph also recommended arming Ukraine “to the hilt”; giving it “all $300 billion of Russia’s frozen assets”; making Europe “pay more for weapons” and provide 100,000 troops as “peacekeepers”; enabling “American companies to rebuild Ukraine”; and inviting Ukraine to join NATO should Putin refuse to accept “reasonable” peace deal terms.

Rudolph told VOA that Trump could convince those in the U.S. now skeptical of continuing to arm Ukraine that doing so as part of a peace deal would benefit American workers.

“[H]e tells them, OK, now we’ve got a good deal, it’s secured by rare earth [minerals], it has ended the war, and in order to hold it together, we’re going to need to provide a continued stream of good old American-made weapons, which by the way, create all of these American jobs and facilities and factories across red states.”

Touting economic benefits

In a report titled “Dollars and Sense: America’s Interest in a Ukrainian Victory,” Elaine McCusker, Frederick W. Kagan and Richard Sims of the American Enterprise Institute looked at the cost of ending support for Ukraine, concluding that this would lead to Ukraine’s defeat and Russia’s advance farther into Europe, forcing the U.S. to surge its presence in Europe.

Among the report’s conclusions:

“Supporting Ukraine to victory against Russia is in the best interest of the United States.”
“A world in which Russia prevails would be more dangerous and more expensive for America — requiring an estimated increase of $808 billion in defense spending over five years.”
“Alternatively, an increased and accelerated multinational commitment to Ukraine and the conclusion of the war in the near term would result in a vibrant and free Ukraine with a newly modernized and battle-tested military and a thriving industrial base, which would help stabilize Europe.”

In an interview with VOA, Frederick Kagan said a Russian victory in Ukraine would be a victory for Iran, China and North Korea, encouraging adventurism in their respective regions, and allow Russia to rebuild its army by obtaining additional human and material resources within Ukraine.

A Russian takeover of Ukraine would send a wave of refugees into Europe, further destabilizing the continent, Kagan said.

“They’ve committed atrocities on the Ukrainian population in the areas they occupy. I would expect that would get worse the further west the Russians move and the more they move into the hardest traditional anti-Russian, pro-Western areas of western Ukraine. The horrors will be unspeakable,” he predicted.

He said surged assistance to Ukraine would turn it into a bulwark for European peace and security — a country with a battle-tested army and rapidly developing military industry — thereby allowing the U.S. to focus on other regions.

Middle road approach

The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project” includes policy recommendations concerning the Russia-Ukraine war.

It noted that the American conservative movement is split over Ukraine — one side supports Kyiv, the other favors walking away — and offered a middle road.

Among Project 2025’s recommendations:

"With respect to Ukraine, continued U.S. involvement must be fully paid for; limited to military aid (while European allies address Ukraine’s economic needs); and have a clearly defined national security strategy that does not risk American lives.”
“Regardless of viewpoints, all sides agree that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is unjust and that the Ukrainian people have a right to defend their homeland. The conflict has severely weakened Putin’s military strength and provided a boost to NATO unity and its importance to European nations.”
“The next conservative president has a generational opportunity to bring resolution to the foreign policy tensions within the movement and chart a new path forward that recognizes Communist China as the defining threat to U.S. interests in the 21st century.”

James Carafano, a national security expert at The Heritage Foundation who is responsible for its defense and foreign policy team, told VOA that it is in the U.S. interest to have a free and independent Ukraine that can defend itself.

“For the practical matter is, the United Europe can defend itself, and the United States can defend Europe if Ukraine’s occupied by Russia. Now, having said that, are we … way, way better off with the Russians on the other side of Ukraine? And the answer is ‘absolutely.’