How the War in Ukraine Could End
Apparently it takes more than 24 hours to end a war.
Quick side-note: yes, I’m back to posting here. Topics may be slightly different now but will be in the general politics/economics area.
Those of you who know me are likely aware that Ukraine is by far my #1 political issue. This means that I get extremely angry whenever I see someone suggest that the United States should “end the war” or something to that effect. It is not that “ending the war” is bad, it could very well be the best outcome. But it is true that those who make similar statements are likely to have a childish view of the conflict where Ukraine gets no say in what its future will look like.
And this is, of course, significantly complicated by the election of Donald Trump. Since winning the election, Trump (and Elon Musk) have spoken with Zelenskyy in a supposedly reassuring manner. He has given mixed signals with his cabinet picks - with Marco Rubio and Michael Waltz hinting at an aggressive stance while Tulsi Gabbard as DNI appears to imply a more conciliatory approach to Russia. Nevertheless, Elon has been pretty clear in suggesting that Ukraine will be forced to the negotiating table whether it likes it or not. The implication so far appears to be that Trump wants the war to be over so that he can claim this as a win for the administration. The question I will attempt to ponder is whether (and how) that can be achieved.
Below you will find my thoughts on the past 2.5 years and what can be done next. Feel free to skip the first section if you’re not interested in my retelling of what you may already know.
How we got here
The West fucked up. It fucked up several times in different ways. Its first major fuck-up was in 2008 when it promised both Georgia and Ukraine NATO membership, but outlined no path to said membership and refused to give either country any security guarantees. By doing so the West essentially gave Russia a vague timeline within which invading either country would not be significantly challenged, but if Russia were to act too late, then the countries would be in NATO and Russia would be unable to dominate them. Putin, knowing how to solve for a simple subgame perfect equilibrium, soon launched a war against Georgia. It followed this up with an attack on Crimea after the pro-Russian Yanukovich fled the country during the Maidan Revolution in 2014. In other words, he attacked while it was still “allowed”.
The second wave of fuck-ups came in the aftermaths of Russia’s attack on Georgia and the annexation of Crimea. The attack on Georgia was met with audible gasps, but absolutely no action (in fact, the US soon “reset” relations with Russia). The annexation of Crimea was taken slightly more seriously, with Russia being expelled from the G8 and becoming lightly sanctioned Lightly. But the Obama administration still refused to arm Ukraine and Russia kept going along, knowing that it could annex land one day and poison British citizens the next without any retaliation.
The final fuck-up came in after Russia began its attack on Ukraine. Most would argue that the West’s mistake here was to not push for the peace settlement discussed at Istanbul, but that is misguided. Russia’s last offer there included a “veto” on any security guarantees to Ukraine. Essentially meaning that Russia could re-launch the invasion at any time from a stronger position. The West’s real mistake was stalling time and opting for a strategy of “make sure Ukraine does not lose” rather than “make sure Ukraine wins”. This is best exemplified by Biden’s remarks in March of 2022 where he equated supplying tanks to Ukraine with risking World War 3.
The astute reader will notice that Biden did eventually begin sending tanks to Ukraine, but this only started in 2023 when it was too late for the tanks to make Ukraine win. The fact of the matter is that there was a narrow window of opportunity in 2022 when Russia had not yet begun mobilization and was actually outnumbered by the number of Ukrainian soldiers. This led to Russia being forced to retreat from the areas around Kyiv and massive Ukrainian counter-offensives in Kharkiv and Kherson. The counterfactual here is one where the United States and its Western allies begin sending Abrams tanks, HIMARS systems/missiles and F16 jets (along with training for pilots) immediately after the invasion begins. This would have two major effects: firstly, it would strengthen Ukraine’s position at the bargaining table and make a real settlement (with tangible security guarantees) far more likely; second, it would significantly boost Ukraine’s counteroffensive abilities in late 2022 when Russia had neither dug in nor begun to mobilize. The war could have been over there and then. Instead we had a policy of “escalation management” which has led to insane suffering with no good path in sight.
What now?
With the third fuck-up listed above, the war has become gloom. Russia continues to incrementally take territory while it avoids sanctions with the help of Central Asian countries. An obvious problem that the EU has decided to remain blind to. Given current circumstances, I believe that any peace treaty in the very near future is impossible. Russia’s goals are obvious: (1) take complete control of the four oblasts it has annexed (2) destroy as much of Ukraine as possible to prevent it from joining either NATO or the EU. It could sign onto these two points in a treaty if the option was on the table, in fact, that is exactly what Putin wants, but Ukraine would never agree to these terms. It would leave the country torn apart, weak, and without any security guarantees.
This last point is essential. Perhaps you believe that Russia is done with war. Perhaps you think that a neutral Ukraine would not be attacked by Russia (doubtful given that Ukraine’s constitution actually guaranteed neutrality until Russia took Crimea). But the outcome will remain unacceptable to Ukraine. There is a State on your border which invaded you, took a significant chunk of your land, murdered hundreds of thousands of your citizens, and committed insane atrocities in Bucha. As far as you’re concerned, Russia could come back at any point in the future to resume the war. You simply cannot feel safe without major security guarantees from the West. Therefore, a deal like this deal is extremely unlikely to be signed.
And to be clear, Donald Trump cannot (and I think would not) force a treaty like this on Ukraine. The most the United States could do is threaten to withhold any and all military aid from the country if Ukraine does not stop fighting. This would likely end in one of two ways: (1) the EU realizing that it must step up and finally increasing aid to compensate for the US backing off (2) Ukraine continuing to fight on its own. The latter scenario would mean the war goes on with Donald Trump receiving blame every time that Russia takes control of more territory. Given how much Afghanistan affected Biden’s approval, I doubt that is an outcome Trump would want.
A Resolution?
But there is another chance. The only real peace deal which could stop the war in the longer term would likely include (1) a ceasefire along something close to current battle lines (2) security guarantees for Ukraine, either in the form of NATO membership or some kind of direct treaty obligation (as they originally hoped to receive at Istanbul). To be clear, this would be far from ideal as it would leave a massive chunk of Ukrainian territory occupied, it would in a sense be losing the war. But in a much more important manner, it would mean that Ukraine would win the peace. It would become a secure nation capable of developing over time with the chance of becoming whole again in the future.
This is probably the best we can obtain right now. It’s not that Russia is undefeatable, far from it. They could have lost the war in 2022 if the West played its cards right. The main problem is that Ukraine lacks the manpower to attack an opponent that has dug-in and placed landmines as well as Russia has. Even if the West ups military assistance by a large margin, counter-offensives are unlikely to do better than they did in 2023.
The question is how a Trump administration could achieve a deal like this. Right now, this is essentially impossible. Russia will keep pushing until it’s certain that Ukraine will not receive any security guarantees. On the other hand, restricting aid to Ukraine will only make the situation worse and help Russia’s goals. It stands to reason that the only way to achieve this peace deal is to (1) massively increase aid to Ukraine (2) allow Ukraine to attack military targets in Russian territory using US weapons (3) tighten the sanctions regime on Russia. These three could turn the battlefield in Ukraine’s favor and make Russia wary of continuing the war. The result may be that Russia comes to the negotiating table hoping to retain at least what it occupies right now (whereas Ukraine comes to the table because it considers the costs of a successful counter-offensive to be punitive). Only then could a deal be “forced” by the Trump administration.
Even under this scenario there would be major questions to answer. Most obvious is how Europe will deal with its energy shortage. A possible answer is that the US could boost oil/gas production and reverse the policy of pausing LNG exports. This could very well be enough to change where things stand.
So for those of you rooting for peace, I am with you. But you must understand that there is no path to a lasting peace that includes the US making decisions for Ukraine or abandoning it at such a pivotal moment. The only real peace deal would instead be preceded by a major increase in assistance. Such is the counter-intuitive nature of international relations.
Your article raises some valid historical points, but it fundamentally misses the mark on the most critical issue: America’s interests. It’s astounding that in all your analysis, there’s little acknowledgment that the U.S. is not Ukraine’s servant. We’ve poured billions of dollars into a conflict with no clear endgame and an increasingly diminished return on investment. To suggest that Ukraine—a country entirely dependent on American aid for its survival—gets to dictate the terms of peace is not just naïve; it’s absurd.
Ukraine’s ability to resist Russia relies almost exclusively on the United States and, to a lesser extent, Europe. Yet your article implies that America has no right to enforce a resolution that prioritizes its own interests. That is not how global power works. If Ukraine cannot guarantee its own security or fund its own war, it does not get to call the shots. Period. Pretending otherwise ignores the very real power dynamics at play.
Your dismissal of those who suggest “ending the war” as “childish” is a cheap shot that fails to engage with the legitimate concerns many Americans have about this endless military and financial commitment. It’s not childish to ask why we should continue writing blank checks for a war that does nothing to secure our borders, strengthen our economy, or protect American lives. It’s pragmatic. And your condescension doesn’t change that.
The crux of your argument seems to hinge on some fantasy scenario where the U.S. massively escalates aid, pushes Ukraine to victory, and achieves a “real peace.” But let’s be real—this isn’t 2022. Ukraine has been outmaneuvered, outnumbered, and outgunned. The West’s dithering early on may have cost Ukraine its chance at a decisive win, but that ship has sailed. No amount of HIMARS, tanks, or F-16s will change the reality on the ground now: Ukraine cannot win this war outright. Continuing to dump resources into a losing battle is the opposite of strategic thinking.
You also misread Trump’s likely approach. Trump doesn’t care about Ukraine’s feelings or optics. He cares about claiming credit for ending a costly, unwinnable conflict. And honestly, that’s what the American people want too. This isn’t about “defeating Russia”; it’s about stopping the hemorrhaging of American tax dollars into a war that has no bearing on our day-to-day lives. Trump forcing Ukraine and Russia to the table to sign an unfavorable peace treaty isn’t just realistic—it’s the smart play. America gains nothing from propping up a country that cannot stand on its own, no matter how noble you think the cause is.
At the end of the day, the truth is simple: Ukraine is a pawn in a much larger game, and pawns don’t get to make the rules. If America decides it’s time for peace, then it’s time for peace. And no amount of moralizing about Ukraine’s sovereignty changes the fact that our resources, not their resolve, are what’s keeping this war alive.