Peace or nothing? What is Trump planning for Ukraine, and are there prospects for ending the war by 2025?
What are the options for peaceful resolution in 2025, what are the plans of Donald Trump, Europe, and Ukraine, as well as what objectives the Kremlin has and whether a ceasefire is possible in the near future – read in the column by the deputy editor-in-chief of RBC-Ukraine, Milan Lelic.
Contents
"We do not know exactly what 2023 will bring us," said President Volodymyr Zelensky in his New Year's address on December 31, 2022. In his address for the upcoming 2024 year, he added: "Whatever the next year brings, we will be stronger." What exactly Zelensky will say tomorrow, of course, remains unknown.
However, many Ukrainians would likely name (or wish to name) 2025 as the "year of ending the war/peace/truce." This is primarily tied to Donald Trump's victory in the presidential elections and his widely publicized plans for the swift end of the Russian-Ukrainian war.
It is clear that daily reports from global media about how, when, and under what conditions the war might end also play a role. Although these reports are mostly based on statements from mysterious anonymous sources in the West, they create a corresponding informational backdrop. Indeed, many find it hard not to believe that we are dealing with a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yet, despite the thousands of various insights, statements, and comments that have surfaced in recent weeks, the parameters for a peaceful resolution remain shrouded in almost complete uncertainty.
What are the positions of Trump and Russia
"What we want, they don't want. What Trump wants, nobody wants," describes the current situation in a conversation with RBC-Ukraine one of the prominent members of Zelensky's team.
Trump has publicly acknowledged that "ending the war in 24 hours" has proven to be a far more complex task than he initially thought. Thus, the future U.S. president, according to numerous reports, is currently focused on the tactical goal of achieving a ceasefire.
For his audience (which is primarily what Trump is concerned about), this could very well pass as the "end of the war." People in Eastern Europe stop killing each other – what more could be considered a success? One can easily imagine Trump, in his usual manner of stretching words and gesturing widely, boasting from the stage: "While Biden was in office, the war lasted three years. I came in, and the war ended immediately. Under Biden, millions died, under me – no one dies." Following that, it is very likely that Trump would happily shift all negotiations about borders, guarantees, peacekeepers, and other modalities onto the Europeans, Ukrainians, and Russians, immersing himself in domestic American matters.
However, there won't be a magic wand that can silence the guns, even for Trump after his inauguration. The Ukrainian government does not desire an unconditional ceasefire for understandable reasons.
First, as RBC-Ukraine's sources indicate, solid, realistic security guarantees must be obtained in some form: peacekeepers, long-term commitments for arms supplies, etc.
Moreover, trust in the aggressor state is, naturally, at a zero level. And the ceasefire regime can be violated by the Russians at any moment. One of the representatives of the presidential team outlined such a scenario: a ceasefire is declared, martial law is lifted, Ukraine holds elections – but a week before the vote, the Russians (naturally blaming everything on Kyiv) resume hostilities. And what then? Hold elections anyway? But how can that be done if there are no physical conditions for it? Cancel the elections? But many within Ukraine, especially those expecting a good result at the polls, would vehemently oppose that. In the end, it would result in complete chaos, which is exactly what the enemies desire. "Moreover, there are rumors that if there is a truce, the borders will open, everyone will leave, and the Russians will attack again, leaving no one to mobilize, etc.," says the source.
Russia also does not wish for a ceasefire at this time, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov publicly stated last week. Moreover, in general, the Kremlin is not prepared for serious negotiations for the simple reason that it sees no point in them while the initiative on the front is on its side. The occupiers' task is clear – to reach the administrative borders of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and to push the Armed Forces of Ukraine out of the Kursk region.
Additionally, as informed sources told RBC-Ukraine, the military wing in Moscow has significantly strengthened its position – various generals led by Gerasimov have sidelined the so-called "businessmen," who a couple of years ago were involved in the decision-making process and were relatively amenable to negotiations. Meanwhile, the "uniformed" individuals are pushing Putin to solve all problems exclusively through military means, showing him various "nuts" and assuring him that the Russian Federation should set maximum goals rather than compromise.
At the same time, a wise move from the Kremlin would be not to outright dismiss Trump's peace ideas but rather to engage with him, conduct consultations with his advisors, and do so with maximum respect for the future U.S. leader.
In Ukrainian and foreign circles, RBC-Ukraine has heard a theory: one should hope that Russia, as it did in 2022 and 2014, will overestimate its own strength and will make "unforced errors," to use tennis terminology. The main of these would be to show disrespect to Trump.
Perhaps a test balloon was the sharply critical comment from Orthodox oligarch Konstantin Malofeev in the Financial Times. Malofeev stated that American peace plans and Trump's special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg, should simply be "sent to hell." This version is supported by the choice of the speaker himself. Malofeev is undoubtedly close to the Kremlin but is still not an official representative of the government. Therefore, it was interesting to observe the reaction of Trump's team – whether they would accept such an attitude or not. They did not accept it – Kellogg sharply advised Malofeev on Fox News to "know his place."
If the Kremlin, contrary to logic, continues to try to act from the position of "the boss in the neighborhood," and if Trump senses that Moscow treats him with even a hint of disrespect – then, according to this theory, the mood of the future president could change very quickly, and Ukraine would receive everything and even more from the U.S.
Of course, such a concept is built on a rather shaky foundation – faith in Trump's complete unpredictability and impulsiveness, his ability to radically revise his decisions.
Nonetheless, any assistance will not be given without conditions, such as lowering the age of mobilization, and optionally – political and economic demands like conducting elections promptly, raising taxes, etc. The argument would be that since an agreement with Russia is unattainable, and Ukraine is ready to fight and make further sacrifices, then let us help them.
Another scenario is that if Moscow engages with Trump's team in negotiations that are prolonged but yield no results, it would be a bad scenario for Ukraine – as during this time, the Russians would continue to advance in the Donbas and strike at rear infrastructure.
Trump is also actively trying to involve China in solving the problem, even mentioning it in his tweet about a meeting with Zelensky and Macron in Paris. "Here, Trump has two options: either elevate Putin to his level as an equal interlocutor and negotiate everything with him, or ask the Chinese to somehow rein in their junior partner," says a source from the government.
However, another option is also possible – if Trump sees that he is unable to end the Russian-Ukrainian war, he may simply lose interest in it, shifting all the responsibility onto the Europeans, saying, "These are your neighbors fighting; you deal with them." And, of course, the Europeans also do not have their own peace plan.
What do Europe and Ukraine think
European participation in the peace negotiations is currently revolving around the idea of deploying a peacekeeping contingent in Ukraine, with French President Macron being the driving force behind this initiative. Earlier this year, he proposed "sending troops to Ukraine." However, in Ukraine, according to various sources, his idea was either not understood or not appreciated, resulting in no action being taken. This did not sit well with the French leader.
Although discussions about "peacekeepers" have been ongoing for several weeks, there is still no specific information as of the end of 2024. And it is precisely this specificity that is the essence of the entire initiative.
First, will they be peacekeepers or instructors training Ukrainian soldiers? Second, where will they be deployed: deep in the rear, along the line of demarcation, or somewhere in between? Third, what function will