Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach to resolving the war in Ukraine has surfaced as a series of conflicting proposals, none of which include Ukraine’s accession to NATO.
According to sources cited by Reuters, these proposals stem from three key advisers within Trump’s circle: retired Army Lieutenant-General Keith Kellogg, Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, and Richard Grenell, the former acting director of national intelligence.
While differing in specifics, the proposals share a common strategy: freezing the conflict along current front lines and excluding NATO membership for Ukraine.
This approach, however, faces skepticism from analysts, officials, and European allies, who argue it may not lead to a sustainable resolution.
Three Proposals, One Goal
Each of the three advisers has presented a unique framework for achieving peace. Kellogg’s plan emphasizes recognizing current territorial lines as a starting point for negotiations.
Vance’s approach suggests creating a fortified demilitarized zone along the front lines, effectively separating Ukrainian and Russian forces.
Grenell’s proposal goes a step further, advocating the establishment of autonomous zones in eastern Ukraine to address governance in contested areas.
All three plans rely on a mix of incentives and threats to bring the warring parties to the negotiating table.
They propose leveraging U.S. military aid as a key bargaining tool—offering to reduce support to Ukraine if it refuses to negotiate while promising increased backing should Russia decline talks.
Despite these ideas, Trump has yet to formalize a unified strategy or convene a working group to consolidate the proposals. His advisers have been left to refine their plans independently, occasionally discussing them directly with Trump.
The Role of Direct Diplomacy
Experts believe any successful resolution will likely require direct negotiations involving Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
However, they caution that Putin might be inclined to delay talks, anticipating more favorable concessions from Trump should he officially return to the presidency.
“Putin is a master at playing the long game,” remarked Eugene Rumer of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “He may see greater advantage in prolonging the conflict, especially if he believes Trump’s approach could yield significant gains for Russia.”
Zelensky, on the other hand, has expressed openness to potential compromises. In November, he suggested he might consider a peace deal that does not include reclaiming all Russian-occupied territories, provided Ukraine is granted immediate NATO membership to deter future aggression.
However, Trump’s proposals explicitly exclude NATO membership, creating a significant obstacle to Zelensky’s vision of long-term security for Ukraine.
Challenges and Skepticism
The proposed plans face considerable hurdles. Zelensky has consistently emphasized the importance of NATO membership as a cornerstone of Ukraine’s defense strategy.
Without this assurance, analysts argue, Kyiv is unlikely to accept any agreement that freezes the conflict along current lines or creates autonomous zones in its eastern territories.
European allies and some U.S. lawmakers have also voiced concerns about Trump’s potential strategy. The Biden administration has continued to supply advanced weaponry to Ukraine, bolstering its position on the battlefield and signaling strong support for Kyiv.
European nations, too, have shown a willingness to increase aid, further complicating Trump’s ability to pressure Ukraine into concessions.
Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže recently noted that Western allies are taking a “wait-and-see” approach, holding off on major NATO-related commitments for Ukraine until Trump’s potential inauguration.
However, this delay has raised questions about the credibility and timeliness of any future U.S.-led peace efforts.
The Risk of a Prolonged Conflict
Critics of Trump’s proposed strategies highlight the potential for prolonged stalemates rather than meaningful resolutions.
“Freezing the conflict along the current front lines does not address the underlying issues driving this war,” said Rumer. “Without a clear and realistic plan, these proposals risk entrenching divisions rather than bridging them.”
The emphasis on reducing U.S. military aid to pressure Ukraine has also sparked debate. Detractors argue that such a move could weaken Kyiv’s defense capabilities at a critical juncture, undermining the broader Western effort to counter Russian aggression.
The Path Forward
While Trump’s peace proposals signal a shift from the Biden administration’s approach, their success hinges on several uncertain factors.
Convincing Zelensky to accept a deal that excludes NATO membership and effectively cedes control of contested territories to Russia remains a daunting task.
Simultaneously, gaining support from European allies and the U.S. Congress may prove equally challenging, especially amid ongoing military and humanitarian aid efforts.
Observers suggest that Trump’s next steps will be critical in determining whether these proposals gain traction or falter.
A formal working group to consolidate the plans and address their shortcomings could help clarify his administration’s vision for ending the war.
Until then, the future of these competing strategies—and their impact on the war in Ukraine—remains uncertain.
As both sides brace for a prolonged conflict, the possibility of a negotiated peace continues to face significant obstacles, leaving analysts doubtful about the feasibility of Trump’s approach.
Leave a Comment