How to secure an acceptable agreement for Ukraine

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Your guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the world

Next to the Middle East, the future of Ukraine is one of the most important political questions of the coming year. US President-elect Donald Trump has spoken of ending Russia’s aggressive war on its neighbor within 24 hours of returning to office. Kyiv expresses readiness for an agreement, on its own terms. Despite the difficulties Russian economyhowever, Vladimir Putin – whose forces have made slow but steady progress over the past year – shows little inclination to come to the table. The biggest risk is that Ukraine is entering a bad deal for the country, for European security, and ultimately for the US and other allies.

The fear in Europe is that Trump could quickly take the lead agreement as the first trophy of his presidency. He encouraged Kyiv to enter negotiations by threatening to cut off US aid. Without pressure on Moscow, however, this would amount to giving in to Russia’s demands, including neutrality and demilitarization for Ukraine.

The risks of such an agreement they are clear. Another weak point is that Ukraine may return to Moscow’s path, or succumb to another Russian attack at a later date. Kyiv’s leadership may not accept a deal that amounts to submission but prefers to fight, even without US support; European countries would feel morally and politically obligated to help. Either way, even if Trump could see withdrawing the US from Ukraine to free it up to face China, any appearance that Washington had abandoned the friendship would not only strengthen Beijing but the favored by North Korea and Iran.

There is another agreement at least conceivable, very difficult to reach but much better for Ukraine and its partners. It will seek to ensure that, even if Russia retains de facto control of a part of Ukraine – however distasteful that prospect may be – the rest will be able to rebuild, to join the EU and succeed.

There are two main challenges to realizing such a vision. One is to force a recalcitrant Putin to the table by being ready to compromise; his goal, after all, has always been less about winning territory than undermining Ukraine’s position. But it may still be possible to push the Russian leader into a deal with caution – just like Trump he presented – that the US can give Ukraine “more than it has ever received”.

This would require not only a promise but quickly to provide additional military assistance to Kyiv to show seriousness. The risks of The rise of Russia would increase. However, as some people close to the US president-elect believe, a “bad” deal for Ukraine could be “Trump’s Afghanistan”, which refers to the uncontrolled withdrawal of 2021 under Joe Biden, whom Trump allegedly insults. The European Union must press this debate with the new president.

The second challenge is that any agreement that enables all of Ukraine to rebuild will have to be supported by security guarantee strong enough to deter Moscow from future attacks. Since an agreement to invite Kyiv to join Nato may not be possible, and Trump wants to reduce the US military commitment in Europe, it may fall to European countries to provide such arrangements. French President Emmanuel Macron has led discussions on security guarantees, including possible ones deployment of troops. But progress has slowed. Adequate preparations will require the mobilization of European forces and resources on a scale not seen for decades.

A “bad” ceasefire or a prolonged continuation of a destructive war with diminishing hopes of restoring Ukraine’s integrity is not a good option. An acceptable agreement can be difficult to achieve and expensive to support. Bearing those costs now, however, can avoid significant costs down the line.