Follow us on social

Trump Putin NATO

No NATO for Ukraine is key to jumpstarting stalled talks

Advice to President Trump: if you want a 'win', deal with this Russian demand before calling for a ceasefire

Analysis | Europe

Bringing peace to Ukraine has obviously proved more difficult than President Trump imagined when he pledged to end the conflict in a day. Some six months into his term, a settlement seems far from imminent.

Visibly frustrated, Trump has openly criticized Russian President Putin, revived military support for Ukraine, and threatened to intensify economic pressure on Russia.

While many have cheered his toughened approach, Trump’s instinct to find a diplomatic end to the war is still correct. Ukraine cannot generate enough manpower — and the West cannot produce enough weapons — for victory in what has become a war of attrition to be realistic. And although Russia cannot conquer and govern all of Ukraine, the war threatens to leave in its wake not only millions of dead and wounded combatants, but an unreconstructed and dysfunctional Ukrainian rump state that could radiate instability into the broader region for years to come and dangerously stoke tension between Russia and the West.

Trump’s progress toward peace has stalled, however, largely because his negotiators have insisted on an unconditional ceasefire before settling the key geopolitical issues underlying the war. That insistence has flowed from the time pressure Trump imposed on himself by promising an early end to the fighting. Since a full-fledged peace treaty would necessarily require grappling with difficult technical issues and negotiating a host of painful compromises, the Trump team has viewed a ceasefire as the fastest path to something it can call a success.

But Russia has little interest in an early ceasefire, and it almost certainly views Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on China, India, and others that purchase Russian energy as mostly empty. It has every incentive to continue fighting – its primary source of negotiating leverage – until it gets assurances that its core interests have been addressed.

What are those interests? For years, Russian officials have insisted that their biggest concerns involve the prospect that Ukraine could join NATO or otherwise host Western military forces on its territory. The draft treaties Russia proposed to the United States and NATO prior to the invasion were focused on getting legally binding guarantees precluding such perceived threats.

Nonetheless, Trump’s team has focused more on addressing Russia’s territorial claims than it has on offering such security guarantees, treating the conflict more as a dispute over where the Ukrainian border should lie than as a broader geopolitical conflict between Russia and the West.

This focus doomed the draft plan that special envoy Witkoff presented to Russia in April, which reportedly offered formal U.S. recognition of Crimea as Russian territory, coupled with sanctions relief and de facto recognition of Russia’s holdings in the Donbass. But the plan’s provision for European peacekeepers in Ukraine crossed a clear Russian red line, undermining the plan’s pledge that Ukraine would not join NATO.

Trump’s path to diplomatic success lies in refocusing on the geopolitical conflict underlying the war, while continuing to enable Ukraine’s defense during negotiations. One element must include concrete assurances that Ukraine will not be in NATO and NATO-member forces will not be in Ukraine. In return for this assurance, Trump should insist that Russia codify its support for Ukraine’s membership in the European Union.

Such a reciprocal compromise would leave Ukraine militarily neutral, but politically and economically anchored in the West — an outcome that would allow Ukraine’s reconstruction and facilitate the repatriation of millions of refugees who otherwise would never return to their homeland. Such renewed strength will be essential to deterring future Russian aggression.

It would also provide an elegant solution to a thorny problem: Russia’s insistence on Ukraine’s “de-nazification,” new elections, and legal protections for linguistic and religious minorities as conditions for a peace settlement. Negotiating with Russia on such issues would be an affront to Ukraine’s domestic sovereignty; addressing them as a requirement of the EU accession process would be far more palatable in Kyiv.

Pursuing such a compromise is Trump’s best hope for moving the conflict in Ukraine from the battlefield into the negotiating room. The West lacks sufficient leverage to force Russia into an immediate ceasefire. But a binding framework agreement that swaps Ukraine’s military neutrality for a path into the European Union, while laying out a roadmap for a larger set of negotiations may still be possible, perhaps even before we hit Trump’s 50-day window on September 1.

Such an agreement could, in turn, facilitate the ceasefire that has thus far evaded Trump’s grasp.

That would not mean victory in this war. But it would be a win.


Top photo credit: Donald Trump (drop of light/shutterstock); NATO flag (Alexandros Michailidis/shutterstock) ; Vladimir Putin (Richard Juilliart/Shutterstock)
Analysis | Europe
Patriot Act supporting senators are mad when they are the targets
Top photo credit: Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Wikimedia/Gabe Skidmore); Sen. Lindsey Graham (Michael Vadon/wikimedia)

Patriot Act supporting senators are mad when they are the targets

Washington Politics

When it was reported this week that former President Joe Biden’s FBI may have targeted the cellphones of eight Republican senators in the "Arctic Frost” investigation related to the January 6, 2021 Capitol Hill riot, the Republicans that were supposedly surveilled were not happy about it.

One was Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who posted on X Wednesday, “We need to know why (ATT) and (Verizon) did not challenge the subpoena for the phone records of eight United States senators when the Biden FBI spied on us during an anti-Trump probe.”

keep readingShow less
Marco Rubio
Top image credit: Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks with President Donald Trump during an event in the State Dining Room at the White House Oct. 8, 2025. Photo by Francis Chung/Pool/ABACAPRESS.COM VIA REUTERSCONNECT

Is Rubio finally powerful enough to topple Venezuela's regime?

Latin America

It appears that Secretary of State Marco Rubio is emerging victorious in the internal Trump administration battle over the direction of U.S. policy toward Venezuela.

The New York Times reported on Oct. 6 that White House special envoy Richard Grenell — who, after meeting President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas this January inked deportation agreements, won the release of American prisoners, and secured energy licenses for U.S. and European oil majors — was told by President Donald Trump to stop all diplomatic outreach toward the resource-rich South American nation.

keep readingShow less
Assimi Goita Mali
Top photo credit: Mali's junta leader Assimi Goita attends the first ordinary summit of heads of state and governments of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) in Niamey, Niger July 6, 2024. REUTERS/Mahamadou Hamidou

Mali in crisis: When the junta has no one left to blame but itself

Africa

Since early September, members of the Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) terrorist organization have been attacking and kidnapping truck drivers transporting fuel to the Malian capital of Bamako. The effects of this blockade appear to be reaching a high point, with images this week showing residents jammed into long lines in the city’s supply-squeezed gas stations.

This comes after several days during which the blockade’s cuts to fuel forced many gas stations across the city to close. Some of the stations that have since reopened are only able to sell diesel to the city’s residents.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.