A plan that doesn’t exist. What does Trump think about the war in Ukraine, and what preparations are being made by Zelensky?

Learn about when Donald Trump's team will prepare their "plan to end the war in Ukraine," what it might include, what concessions Ukraine may be pressured to accept, and whether the Ukrainian authorities are willing to agree to them. Additionally, explore how the issue of territorial control and Ukraine's NATO membership might be resolved, whether peacekeepers will be deployed in Ukraine, and which allies can be relied upon the most – read more in the material by RBK-Ukraine's Deputy Editor-in-Chief Milan Lelich.

Nearly three weeks have passed since Donald Trump's victory in the U.S. presidential elections. During this time, major Western publications have been releasing extensive articles almost daily on how the future U.S. president plans to end the Russian-Ukrainian war, what conditions Washington, Kyiv, and Moscow might agree upon, and what concessions are unacceptable for them.

Typically, these articles are based on comments from various anonymous sources, or at best, opinions shared openly by individuals within U.S. Republican circles. However, often it boils down to attempts to guess the implications of Trump's appointments to his future administration, analyzing posts on social media from Trump and his associates, or even personal opinions from the article's author.

After speaking with several representatives from Ukraine's top military-political leadership, RBK-Ukraine concluded that, as of now, just like before, it remains unclear what exactly the "Trump plan for Ukraine" entails. Neither Trump nor members of his current team have approached Kyiv with specific proposals.

The "leaks" about various "peace plans" and concepts in the media are currently elements of internal power struggles within the future U.S. president's circle, which began long before the elections. Additionally, the various comments on Ukrainian issues from billionaire Elon Musk or Donald Trump Jr. fit within this competition for the attention of the top leader.

Elon Musk (photo: Getty Images)

In the meantime, Trump is more occupied with domestic political issues, which have always been a priority for him. However, he will soon turn his attention to Ukraine. Another more substantive call to the Kremlin is likely to happen. Soon, Andriy Yermak, the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, will also travel to the U.S.

"It's important for us to get to Trump before the Russians do and promote our concept," a source in the presidential circle told RBK-Ukraine.

According to sources, over the next month, just in time for Christmas, the outlines of a potential peace settlement are expected to become clearer. By January 20, Trump's team aims to have a ready solution regarding Ukraine, so that once they gain real authority, they can implement it swiftly. Although not in the promised "24 hours," it will be done relatively quickly. This "turbo mode," by the way, will not only apply to the Ukrainian issue but also to the Middle East, the problem of illegal migrants, etc. – it will be crucial for Trump to demonstrate his ability to resolve issues right from the start of his presidency, contrasting with his predecessor, whom he liked to call "Sleepy Joe." However, in the case of Ukraine, it is far from certain that this "turbo mode" will be effective, given the vast scale of the Russian-Ukrainian war, and not everything depends on Trump.

How the issue of territorial control will be resolved

Throughout this year, Ukraine's primary diplomatic efforts have focused on its own mechanisms: peace formulas, peace summits, and eventually – a victory plan. What to do with this toolkit now, after Trump's victory, has not yet been decided in Kyiv. At least, the Ukrainian authorities do not intend to completely remove these options from the table.

The two main and most challenging issues underlying any potential peace agreement are territories and security guarantees. Regarding territories, according to the publication, Ukraine will never agree to formally renounce any of its territories as defined in 1991, as this is prohibited by law from a formal standpoint.

However, as an intermediate option, the borders preceding the full-scale invasion, namely February 23, 2022, are considered a starting point for any negotiations. This has been publicly stated multiple times by Andriy Yermak. Meanwhile, Volodymyr Zelensky has emphasized that Crimea can be returned through diplomatic means.

0Meeting between Zelensky and Trump in New York (photo: Getty Images)

The obvious problem is that Russia categorically refuses to withdraw from the current line of contact, nor to return to the borders of February 2022, let alone the 1991 borders (notably, the 1991 borders have been mentioned less frequently in public statements by Ukrainian leadership).

The basic negotiating position of the aggressors is based on an ultimatum that Vladimir Putin issued last summer – Ukraine's refusal to relinquish even the currently controlled parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. Another aspect is that the situation "on the ground" is currently clearly not in favor of Ukraine, as we have been losing territory in Donbas in recent months, albeit slowly, rather than liberating it. In recent weeks, the aggressor country has been making even greater efforts to gain control of as much land as possible before any potential negotiations begin.

Ultimately, a theoretically possible scenario is that Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia regions, and Crimea will remain inscribed in the constitutions of both Ukraine and Russia as belonging to them. This is especially relevant considering that there have been many similar situations in world history. In practice, both sides would remain "in their own" territories, controlling the areas they occupy by the end of the active phase of hostilities.

This would represent the "frozen conflict" that Kyiv categorically does not want to accept – and interestingly, Moscow is also opposed to this. However, this scenario, while plausible, is not the only possible one. Furthermore, given the current "realities on the ground," it implies that part of Russia's Kursk region would remain under Ukraine's control – a scenario that is naturally unacceptable for Moscow. Therefore, there are speculations in the corridors about a possible "exchange," for instance, part of Kursk for the territories captured by Russians in Kharkiv region. Or – which is more likely – for the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which poses far more problems for the occupiers than it offers benefits. But for now, these are merely speculations.

Another aspect is how to ensure a real ceasefire under conditions of zero trust between the parties. The most obvious theoretical solution would be the deployment of a peacekeeping contingent.

According to several sources interviewed by RBK-Ukraine, the "Trump plan," when it finally materializes, will also include the idea of introducing peacekeepers, specifically indicating that they should come from Europe. This aligns perfectly with Trump's concept that "the security of Europe is a matter for Europeans themselves."

In Ukraine, the response to this idea has been rather cool so far. The introduction of peacekeepers would essentially mean agreeing to that same "frozen conflict" for an indefinite period, which is unacceptable for us. There are also practical difficulties – the line of contact is far longer than, for example, in Korea or Lebanon, making it much more challenging to manage.

Moreover, it is uncertain that large European countries would readily agree to send a significant contingent of their forces to Ukraine, where they would face enormous risks. The potential scope of the peacekeeping mission could be expanded by involving third countries and placed under a UN mandate, potentially including forces from Bangladesh or Argentina – but for now, this remains an exclusively theoretical scenario.

Security guarantees for Ukraine and NATO membership

Equally important as the issue of territories are the security guarantees for Ukraine to prevent new Russian aggression, which will be necessary regardless of how the "on the ground" issue is ultimately resolved.

Ukrainian sources speaking to The New York Times even assured the publication that the issue of guarantees is more of a priority than the issue of territories. However, after communicating with their sources in the country's military-political leadership, RBK-Ukraine concluded that there is no consensus on this matter. "My personal opinion is that our main goal is to preserve Ukraine as a state. We need to maintain a foothold from which we can reclaim our occupied lands when conditions allow. But not everyone agrees with me," said one of the sources from the publication.

Undoubtedly, the main guarantee for Ukraine would be NATO membership and the protection of at least the controlled territories through collective security guarantees under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

1Zelensky at the NATO summit in Washington (photo: Getty Images)

The first step on this path is to receive an official invitation to join the Alliance, which is stated as the first point in Zelensky's victory plan. It appears that the partial lifting of the ban on strikes deep into Russia with long-range weapons is the maximum boldness that the outgoing administration of Joe Biden is willing to offer. Although Ukrainian authorities still hope that before the end of his term, Biden might take such a step – inviting Ukraine to join NATO.

Another idea regarding guarantees circulating within the Ukrainian leadership is