It’s been evident for a while that President Trump thought Russian President Vladimir Putin might settle for something less than complete control over Ukraine. Since Russia’s invasion in 2022, analysts have pointed out that Putin’s ambitions extend far beyond just two provinces. Now, as Trump gears up for the 2024 election, the situation brings a new challenge.
Over three years into the conflict and seven months back in the White House, Trump seems to think now is the right time for dialogue. His upcoming meeting with Putin in Alaska on August 15 hints that Russian officials may be open to some sort of agreement.
The arrangement being proposed looks familiar. Russia currently occupies about 20% of Ukrainian territory, and discussions might center around ceasefires and security arrangements to halt the fighting.
However, whether Putin really concurs—or if this is just a strategy—remains uncertain. A significant hurdle appears to be Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Just after the meeting in Alaska was announced, Zelensky reiterated that “Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupiers.” He did leave some room for a potential “real decision” about peace, but insisted that Ukraine’s interests remain a priority.
Interestingly, Trump and Putin are set to meet without Zelensky present. This dynamic plays into a broader game of power where influence can often overshadow direct intervention.
When it comes to negotiation strategies, Trump has plenty up his sleeve. One recent tool is the imminent secondary sanctions package that could impose tariffs and penalties on countries like India, which buy Russian oil. This could apply pressure on Russia by affecting their trading partners and might force a compromise.
Additionally, Ukraine is receiving new military support from NATO nations. Mark Latte, NATO’s executive director, recently supported the idea that NATO countries can provide arms and ammunition to Ukraine for the foreseeable future. This ongoing support may make Ukraine less likely to feel pressured into concessions.
If Zelensky considers a territorial compromise, he should demand concrete and enforceable compensation, rather than empty promises. To do this effectively, he might need Trump to represent him at the Alaska talks.
Potential core elements of an acceptable deal for Ukraine could include:
EU Membership: Accelerated approval for Ukraine’s EU membership could offer a stable economic and political foundation, even without NATO inclusion. While bureaucratic processes in Brussels might complicate things, Ukraine has already shown a desire to integrate fully into Europe. Trump could leverage this situation to push for expedited acceptance.
Reparations for destruction: Russia ought to finance the reconstruction of Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, given an estimated cost of around $5 trillion over the next decade. Funds frozen in various nations could be utilized for this purpose.
Return of civilians and detainees: Ensuring the safe return of Ukrainians, including children and political prisoners, is another crucial factor that must be addressed.
Non-binding non-attack agreement: Trust has been severely damaged by the invasion. Any settlement would need a formal commitment, along with a verification mechanism, ensuring that Russia will not attack again or undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty. Given a history of Russian interference in other former Soviet states, this assurance must be comprehensive.
While these provisions do not easily address territorial loss, they could help Ukraine secure a safer future and rebuild. Extracting such concessions from Putin won’t be straightforward, but negotiations often involve significant challenges.
The toll of war is staggering, and the stakes are high. Ukraine’s economy has contracted by about 20%, with daily military expenses around $140 million—roughly $51 billion a year. The West has contributed upwards of $100 billion in aid, yet the damage remains immense. Millions have fled, tens of thousands have died, and over 10,000 casualties have been documented.
Russia has also faced significant repercussions. By mid-2024, the war’s financial strain reached $250 billion, with defense spending consuming 40% of the government’s budget. Falling oil and gas revenues are exacerbating tensions, and it’s estimated that over 100,000 Russian soldiers have died—a cost that is politically untenable in a more open society.
President Putin’s willingness to incur such heavy losses for the sake of expanding territory reflects a troubling aspect of his governance. Yet, such tendencies are unlikely to change. Thus, any deal might not put an end to hostilities, nor prevent future conflicts.
If Trump could successfully navigate this situation, it could have far-reaching implications. Solving the conflict in Ukraine could elevate him to a status not previously thought possible, akin to earning a Nobel Peace Prize. History often unfolds in unpredictable ways through unexpected leaders.
