Trump’s Chance to Shape History with a Lasting Peace in Ukraine
by Dan Rice
President-elect Trump has inherited one of the most complex and devastating conflicts of our time, a war that has scarred Ukraine, challenged NATO, and shaken European security. Now, with his recent victory, Trump stands poised to seize a historic opportunity: to end a brutal conflict, honor America’s longstanding commitments, and demonstrate global leadership on the scale of President Eisenhower and President Reagan.
In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower ran on a promise to end the Korean War—a UN-backed conflict against North Korea and China. He recognized the toll on American lives, the devastation in Korea, and the need for a durable peace. After his inauguration on January 20, 1953, Eisenhower swiftly moved to negotiate peace, reaching an armistice by July 27, 1953, that created the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), an international buffer that has kept North and South Korea separated ever since. His decisiveness ended the fighting, solidified U.S. credibility, and showed the world that America would uphold its commitments to allies while pursuing peace.
Now, Trump has the chance to pursue a similar course in Ukraine, where hundreds of thousands have suffered, many have died, and millions have been displaced. Yet, Trump must tread carefully, as proposals from his team are already stirring concerns. One floated idea suggests freezing current front lines, establishing a demilitarized zone with European allies such as Poland, Germany, Britain, and France taking on a monitoring role, and, perhaps most controversially, barring Ukraine from NATO for two decades. While Trump’s intentions to broker peace are commendable, we must scrutinize these conditions closely.
The suggestion that Ukraine could be pressured to concede territory raises troubling historical parallels. In 1994, Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal—the third largest in the world—under the Budapest Memorandum. In exchange, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia provided “assurances” of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. But Russia’s aggression in Crimea in 2014 and its subsequent invasion reveal the perils of relying solely on unenforced assurances.
Trump can take inspiration from another iconic leader: Ronald Reagan. In the 1980s, Reagan faced off against the Kremlin with a mix of strength and diplomacy, refusing to make concessions that compromised core values or U.S. interests. He championed democracy, demanded reforms, and pursued a peace grounded in strength. Reagan’s success came from his unwavering commitment to challenging Soviet overreach, showing that true peace emerges from standing firm, not bending under pressure.
Trump’s team has signaled that the United States may continue military support to Ukraine, helping it deter further Russian aggression. But even the suggestion of freezing aid to compel Ukraine into negotiations could undermine Kyiv’s bargaining power, especially with Russian forces still conducting offensives. Our military assistance has been pivotal in leveling the field for Ukraine’s defense and must remain so if we are to achieve a sustainable peace.
Furthermore, the idea of relying solely on European allies to monitor any future peacekeeping mission respects the need for regional ownership and limits direct U.S. involvement while promoting a balanced European security structure. This approach aligns with Trump’s emphasis on burden-sharing, particularly given that countries like Poland and Germany are already deeply invested in European stability and Ukraine’s defense. Yet, without clear enforcement mechanisms, any peace agreement risks becoming another shaky armistice vulnerable to future violations.
President Trump has promised to end this war. To do so, he can follow Eisenhower’s path by securing a strong, enforceable peace while taking a page from Reagan’s playbook, resisting any agreement that compromises Ukraine’s sovereignty. This could mean maintaining NATO aspirations for Ukraine or, at the very least, fortifying Kyiv’s position until a fair deal is reached. Only through this balanced approach can Trump help Ukraine secure a future that honors its sacrifices and strengthens, rather than weakens, our commitment to global stability.
Trump has the unique opportunity to unite the diplomatic acumen of Eisenhower with the firm resolve of Reagan, crafting a lasting peace that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty, deters future Russian aggression, and stands as a testament to American leadership in uncertain times. History will remember how Trump chooses to wield this chance to end the war—not as a hurried deal, but as a lasting resolution that stands the test of time.