Endgame in Ukraine: Time for a Real Strategy
Introduction
In recent weeks, President Donald Trump has actively engaged with multiple global crises, including brokering a ceasefire in Gaza, initiating talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and advocating for an end to the war in Ukraine. While some of his proposals, such as forcibly relocating Palestinians from Gaza or suggesting Canada join the U.S. as its 51st state, have been dismissed as unrealistic, his proactive approach raises a key question: Why has the Biden administration been so reluctant to pursue diplomatic solutions in Gaza and Ukraine, allowing Trump to position himself—rightly or wrongly—as a candidate for peace?
While there is no certainty that Trump’s diplomatic efforts will succeed—his plans for Gaza could further destabilize the region, and his outreach to Putin may not lead to concrete outcomes—the critical issue is not whether his initiatives will work, but that he is offering an alternative path. In contrast, the Biden administration has emphasized strengthening multilateral ties with allies like Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, while also leaning on figures with a history of interventionist policies. This has created a reluctance to push for an end to conflicts that have devastated civilians and destabilized entire regions.
This contrast calls for a thoughtful reassessment of U.S. strategic priorities. While the multilateral approach championed by Biden is important for long-term stability, the hesitancy to directly address the urgent crises in Gaza and Ukraine has allowed Trump to carve out a space as someone willing to challenge the status quo in pursuit of peace, even if his methods remain controversial. Ultimately, this evolving dynamic forces a broader reflection on how the U.S. approaches diplomacy, conflict resolution, and its role in shaping global stability.
As the war nears a potential climax, Trump is correct in asserting that the United States should recalibrate its approach. Wars end in diplomacy when battlefield conditions dictate it. The United States must acknowledge that neither side can achieve an outright military victory and instead shift toward brokering a negotiated settlement. The alternative—prolonging the war indefinitely—risks deeper destabilization and the potential collapse of the Ukrainian state.
The Reality of the War
Discussions about the war in Ukraine often remain detached from battlefield realities. The conflict, now a grinding war of attrition, is reaching a decisive moment. Ukraine has suffered immense losses—numbers vary hugely but at least between 46,000 and 100,000 troops have been killed or injured since the conflict’s onset, and with likely many more wounded. Both sides are approaching a culmination point. Russia lacks the capacity to conquer and govern all of Ukraine due to insufficient troop numbers for an effective occupation. Meanwhile, Ukraine lacks the capability to expel Russian forces from entrenched positions. The much-heralded 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, despite significant Western support, failed to achieve substantial territorial gains.
A complete military defeat of Russia is highly improbable, particularly given its nuclear capabilities. More likely, the war will remain unresolved, with Russia achieving some of its strategic objectives while continuing to disrupt Ukraine’s reconstruction and repatriation of refugees. Ongoing missile and drone attacks will likely deter investment, crippling Ukraine’s long-term stability and potentially leading to a failed-state scenario. This conflict is not just a regional war but a pivotal moment that will shape the future of the international order.
The Case for Diplomacy
A diplomatic settlement is not an endorsement of aggression; it is a necessity. Ukraine has admirably defended itself, but at some point, it must consolidate its gains rather than pursue unattainable objectives. Strategy must be grounded in realism and pragmatism, acknowledging that total victory is unlikely.
To be sure, since 2014, Russia has consistently disregarded Ukrainian sovereignty, from the annexation of Crimea to the full-scale invasion in 2022. Moscow did not adhere to the Minsk Agreements, which were intended to reduce tensions in Donetsk and Luhansk. Instead, Russia used these diplomatic efforts to entrench its influence while continuing to destabilize Ukraine.
Framing the war as one of “prolongation” without specifying agency obscures the reality: Russia initiated and continues to drive this conflict. However, without clear diplomatic initiatives, the risk of further regional instability remains high—whether in the Balkans, Moldova, Belarus, or Kaliningrad. Prolonging the conflict without a viable endgame risks further fracturing Europe.
In the short term, escalation—through increased military aid and economic pressure—can serve to improve Ukraine’s bargaining position and demonstrate the resolve of the international community. However, this also raises the question of what a sustainable diplomatic solution looks like for Ukraine.
Though ruthless, Vladimir Putin is not worse than Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong in his treatment of his own people or his respect for human rights. Stalin and Mao were responsible for the deaths of millions, yet the United States engaged diplomatically with both when it served national interests. During the Cold War, agreements with the Soviet Union and China were pursued not out of trust but out of strategic necessity. As Ronald Reagan famously stated, borrowing a Russian proverb: “Trust, but verify” (doveryai, no proveryai).
This pragmatic diplomacy worked during the Cold War, and there is no reason to believe it cannot work today. Putin’s actions, however aggressive, are calculated within the framework of Russian national interests. If he claims he is willing to negotiate, the U.S. should test his sincerity. A diplomatic engagement could either force him to follow through or expose his reluctance, shaping global perceptions accordingly.
The Broader Geopolitical Stakes
Even if Russia secures territorial gains, its broader strategic concerns—particularly NATO’s expansion—will remain unresolved. Future negotiations will need to address arms control, military confidence-building measures, and economic relations to ensure long-term stability in the region.
Justice and stability are often in tension; insisting on absolute justice without regard for order may result in achieving neither. Ukraine’s conflict is not just a bilateral issue—it has profound implications for U.S.-Russia-NATO relations. Ukraine alone cannot negotiate Europe’s entire security framework. The United States and NATO must engage in these discussions.
If negotiations fail to provide strong guarantees for Ukraine’s security and sovereignty, diplomacy risks reinforcing spheres of influence rather than genuinely resolving conflicts.
European leaders are now considering increased support for Ukraine to compensate for declining U.S. assistance. Their ability to mobilize significant resources—whether in military aid, financial backing, or civilian relief—will directly impact Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table. If Europe steps up in the short term, it could bolster Ukraine’s leverage in negotiations and necessitate greater European involvement in brokering peace—a role the U.S. has not actively pursued.
European and Western support for Ukraine has played a critical role in both strengthening Kyiv’s position and ensuring that Russia faces consequences for its aggression. In the short term, escalation—through increased military aid and economic pressure—can serve to improve Ukraine’s bargaining position and demonstrate the resolve of the international community. However, this also raises the question of what a sustainable diplomatic solution looks like for Ukraine and whether any settlement could avoid the precedent that multipolarity simply returns the world to a Great Game era, where smaller nations are at the mercy of larger powers.
Trump has called for China to be involved and China has also signaled interest in peace negotiations. If Ukraine welcomes Chinese involvement and Beijing is willing to participate, the U.S. will struggle to exclude them from the process. As the U.S. confronts the challenges presented by Russia, China, and the shifting global landscape, it must acknowledge the prominence of the Asian century. While the crisis in Ukraine rightfully garners attention, the gravitational pull of Asia on the United States cannot be ignored. The United States will inevitably be pulled to prioritize Asia more firmly. The important question then is whether this fact can be managed awkwardly or gracefully. Balancing power dynamics, reevaluating the enduring nature of alliances, and considering the perspectives of smaller powers are crucial steps in addressing the complexities of our contemporary world.
It is crucial to acknowledge and accept the current multipolar world, wherein nations like China— and eventually India and others—will assume a more significant, perhaps even leading, role in diplomacy and conflict resolution. Surely, the more rapprochements are engineered (by anyone) the better for all stakeholders and populations (the military-industrial complex excepting). Moreover, the more China expands its reach and ventures into new territories, the more resentment it may provoke. The potential emergence of an “ugly Chinese” could be a worse alternative to the “ugly American,” which might ultimately redound to the United States.
The U.S. should adopt a more agile and flexible approach to adjust to this reality and appreciate the potential benefits it offers, rather than viewing it as only a negative and dangerous development. The U.S. must refrain from pursuing the same traditional approach, which has consistently resulted in taking sides and being a part of the problem rather than the solution. Otherwise, we risk a future where countries turn to China for peacemaking and to the U.S. only for warcraft. Ultimately, diplomacy—including engagement with potential spoilers like China—remains the only viable path to a resolution that prevents prolonged instability and greater geopolitical fragmentation.
But, Ukraine’s struggle must also be understood within a postcolonial framework. As a country forcibly colonized by the USSR, Ukraine has a long history of subjugation, including the Holodomor, the loss of sovereignty under Soviet rule, and a series of betrayals in the post-Soviet era. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum saw Ukraine relinquish its nuclear deterrence in exchange for territorial integrity, only to have that guarantee broken by Russia. Furthermore, democratic grassroots movements in 2004 and 2014 were undermined by Russian interference, fostering deep skepticism among Ukrainians about great-power diplomacy.
Any diplomatic resolution must consider these historical grievances and ensure that Ukraine is not merely a bargaining chip in a larger geopolitical contest. If negotiations fail to provide strong guarantees for Ukraine’s security and sovereignty, diplomacy risks reinforcing spheres of influence rather than genuinely resolving conflicts. The core challenge remains: how can diplomacy secure Ukraine’s long-term independence and prevent a world in which smaller states are increasingly vulnerable? Any proposed peace settlement must answer these fundamental questions.
