Opinion: Nobody's plan will end war in Ukraine

The war in Ukraine is going badly for the good guys.

Ukraine is slowly losing on the eastern front. Its forces are plagued by a dearth of manpower and ammunition. A summer incursion into Russia didn’t change the overall trajectory of the fighting. A deep-strike missile campaign into Russia is potentially promising but has been constrained by Western ambivalence. Ukraine’s much-touted push for North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership hasn’t gotten much U.S. support.

As the outlook in Ukraine darkens, there is growing pressure in Washington for a negotiated settlement. The challenge is securing a decent peace.

Former President Donald Trump’s plan is the simplest: Get Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy together and threaten them both with dire consequences if the war doesn’t end. Trump could tell Zelenskyy he risks losing U.S. aid if he doesn’t cut a deal; he might tell Putin the U.S. will increase that aid, or hit Moscow with harsher sanctions, if Russia resists.

A cutoff of U.S. assistance would quickly bring Ukraine to its knees. Unfortunately, it’s less clear why the threat of more U.S. aid to Ukraine would frighten Putin.

One suspects Trump’s plan isn’t about securing a favorable peace, but about securing peace at any cost. Trump seems to envision Ukraine signing away its occupied territories and probably agreeing to limits on its relations with the West, in exchange for a cease-fire that won’t last a minute longer than Putin wants it to.

A second approach, with support in Democratic national-security circles, is more realistic in recognizing that Ukraine needs a better hand to play. The U.S. would continue helping the Ukrainians defend their territory, in hopes of eventually making the price of Russian offensives prohibitive. Washington might moderately tighten sanctions, going after some Chinese banks that are facilitating strategic trade with Russia. And if Vice President Kamala Harris wins the election, she might seek another aid package for Ukraine, meant to show Putin he can’t outlast the West and to help Kyiv rebuild for at least the threat of another offensive. Then, maybe, Ukraine and the West could conduct diplomacy from a position of unity and strength.

Yet this approach, too, has an obvious weakness. If the support the U.S. has provided so far hasn’t made Putin give up, why would a strategy featuring — essentially — more of the same now do the trick? Given that Russia has nearly four times Ukraine’s population, Zelenskyy’s army may bleed to death before Putin’s does.

The issue here is the same contradiction that has plagued U.S. policy since February 2022. Washington wants Ukraine to win. But for obvious and understandable reasons — the pull of competing priorities in the Pacific, the fear of escalation with Russia — it also wants to limit U.S. involvement.

Alas, we can’t always have everything we want. Today, many believe a peace deal would reduce the costs and risks America bears in supporting Ukraine. But simply getting a deal that isn’t tantamount to surrender may require incurring greater costs and risks than the U.S. has accepted so far.

Indeed, a peace deal — be it good or bad for Ukraine — won’t bring a lasting resolution to this saga. No settlement will last unless the West gives Ukraine the long-term security guarantees, and the military and financial assistance necessary to convince Putin that resuming the conflict is a bad idea.

If the U.S., under Trump or Harris, doesn’t confront that problem squarely, the end of this Russia-Ukraine war could simply start the countdown to the next one.

— Hal Brands

Bloomberg Opinion