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
US Capitol
Top image credit: Lucky-photographer via shutterstock.com

Why does peace cost a trillion dollars?

Washington Politics

As Congress returns from its summer recess, Washington’s attention is turning towards a possible government shutdown.

While much of the focus will be on a showdown between Senate Democrats and Donald Trump, a subplot is brewing as the House and Senate, led by Republicans but supported by far too many Democrats, fight over how big the Pentagon’s budget should be. The House voted to give Trump his requested trillion dollar budget, while the Senate is demanding $22 billion more.

keep readingShow less
Yemen Ahmed al-Rahawi
Top image credit: Funeral in Sana a for senior Houthi officials killed in Israeli strikes Honor guard hold up a portraits of Houthi government s the Prime Minister Ahmed al-Rahawi and other officials killed in Israeli airstrikes on Thursday, during a funeral ceremony at the Shaab Mosque in Sanaa, Yemen, 01 September 2025. IMAGO/ via REUTERS

Israel playing with fire in Yemen

Middle East

“The war has entered a new phase,” declared Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a senior official in Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement, after Israeli jets streaked across the Arabian Peninsula to kill the group’s prime minister and a swathe of his cabinet in Yemen’s capital, Sana’a.

The senior official from Ansar Allah, the movement commonly known as the Houthis, was not wrong. The strike, which Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz promised was “just the beginning,” signaled a fundamental shift in the cartography of a two-year war of attrition between the region’s most technologically advanced military and its most resilient guerrilla force.

The retaliation was swift, if militarily ineffective: missiles launched towards Israel disintegrated over Saudi Arabia. Internally, a paranoid crackdown ensued on perceived spies. Houthi security forces stormed the offices of the World Food Programme and UNICEF, detaining at least 11 U.N. personnel in a sweep immediately condemned by the U.N. Secretary General.

The catalyst for this confrontation was the war in Gaza, unleashed by Hamas’s October 7 attacks on Israel, which provided the Houthis with the ideological fuel and political opportunity to transform themselves. Seizing the mantle of Palestinian solidarity — a cause their leader, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, frames as a “sacrifice in the cause of God Almighty ” — they graduated from a menacing regional actor into a global disruptor, launching missiles toward Israel just weeks after Hamas’s attacks and holding one of the world’s most vital shipping lanes hostage.

The chessboard was dangerously rearranged in May, when the Trump administration, eager for an off-ramp from a costly and ineffective air campaign, brokered a surprise truce with the Houthis. Mediated by Oman, the deal was simple: the U.S. would stop bombing Houthi targets, and the Houthis would stop attacking American ships. President Trump, in his characteristic style, claimed the Houthis had “capitulated” while also praising their “bravery.”

keep readingShow less
TRump  and Mikheil Kavelashvili
Top photo credit: President Trump (shutterstock/Maxim Elramsisy) and Georgian president Mikheil Kavelashvili ( President of Azerbaijan)

Georgia Dream hopes Trump is ticket out of geopolitical purgatory

Europe

For economic reasons but also for self-preservation, Georgia does not want to be dragged into picking sides in its relations with larger powers. Its president’s open letter to Donald Trump may be an effort to balance growing Chinese influence.

President Mikheil Kavelashvili’s letter to Trump urges a restoration of strategic ties with Washington. It struck the tone of a forsaken friend, talking about the lack of U.S. focus, raising “doubts and questions among the Georgian people about how free and sincere your administration’s actions are in terms of strengthening peace in the region.” He even bemoans Trump’s reinstatement of relations with President Putin.

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.