There will no Christmas peace in Ukraine, not even as the conflict ends its third year. But people are talking differently about this war now. Less about how to manage it. More of how it could end.
Donald Trump begins his second term as president on Jan. 20. We can rule out Trump’s support of Ukraine in its fight against Vladimir Putin’s Russia for three more years, both militarily and financially. Trump has said so often enough. He doesn’t believe American interests are seriously affected in Donbas or Crimea. If Europeans see their interests being affected then he believes they should take care of it themselves.
Trump spoke with Emmanuel Macron and Volodymr Zelenskyy while at the reopening of Notre Dame in Paris and later renewed his call for an “immediate ceasefire” in Ukraine. Trump spoke with Time Magazine, which named him Person of the Year, and criticized Joe Biden’s approval of launching American missiles at Russian military target. “Why are we doing this? We’re escalating this war and only making it worse,” Trump said.* Trump told NBC that Ukraine would have to adjust to having less support from the U.S. in his latest remarks one month before he takes office.
During the election campaign, Trump repeatedly made headlines by saying he would end the war within 24 hours of taking office in his typically loud-mouthed, bossy and crazy fashion. His remarks sparked enthusiasm among believers in the MAGA religion, our savior has a plan, and indignation among the nonbelievers, he doesn’t even have a plan!
Does Trump have a plan? If so, what is it? Insight from his first term in office shows us you should not always take Trump literally, but you must always take him seriously. More specifically, he will not end the Ukraine war in 24 hours. But from the first day in office, American foreign policy will fundamentally shift in regard to Ukraine. Trump will redefine the goals and take new paths to meet them.
Defeating Putin militarily is not a priority for Trump. The restoration of Ukraine’s borders is, in Trump’s view, an understandable objective, but not achievable. He doesn’t believe that the free West will be defended on the Ukrainian-Russian border. His great rival isn’t in Moscow, but in Beijing. So, let’s clean up this front, Trump says. That’s the goal.
Capitulation as Real Politics
And the way there? In Germany, the Alternative for Germany party, the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance – Reason and Justice party and the Left Party are making simple demands: no more weapons or money for Ukraine; lift the sanctions against Russia. In other words, recognize the new borders, capitulation as real politics. Does Trump think the same way? No. Putin takes everything? He doesn’t think like that. Especially not since Putin has been waging this war with Iranian missiles and North Korean troops. It’s bad company.
It is now clear who Trump has delegated the task of ending the war in Ukraine: Keith Kellogg, a retired general, former national security advisor and an interesting figure. Two revealing documents indicate how Kellogg will advise Trump.
First a strategical report written and published in April of this year by the former general and a coauthor. Even back then, Kellogg said a ceasefire was America’s ultimate policy goal, as Trump is called for in Paris. Weapons deliveries to Ukraine should continue, but only if Kyiv engages in peace talks. And as a concession to Putin for coming to the negotiation table, Ukraine will not become a member of NATO. Nevertheless, its security should still be guaranteed, however that may be accomplished.
Diplomacy Instead of War
The second document is an interview in which Kellogg outlined his plan to Voice of America, the international U.S. state media network. Kellogg said the Ukrainians should not be pressured into giving up parts of their country. This is exactly what Vice President-elect JD Vance called for. “When you are one of 100 senators, you can ask for a lot of things.” Kellogg said. “When you speak for the government, things change.”* Kyiv doesn’t have to relinquish its territorial claims, but it does need to take a different path: diplomacy instead of fighting. Trump’s special envoy also recognizes that this path won’t produce results while Putin rules the Kremlin.****
The border between NATO and the former Warsaw Pact countries ran through the middle of Germany until 1990. The old Federal Republic of Germany had first put the German Democratic Republic in quotation marks, then effectively recognized it as its own state, without ever giving up reunification as a national objective. It took 40 years until the time was right. At the beginning of the 1990s, Kellogg was stationed as a general in Stuttgart, headquarters for the U.S. Armed Forces in Europe. The German example is familiar to him. However, the analogy has its limits. From the beginning, West Germany was protected by NATO. According to Kellogg’s plan, western Ukraine won’t have this protection.
A Fox News Host Rants
Does Trump listen to Kellogg? Or his future secretary of state, Marco Rubio? Rubio once appeared as a hard-liner against Russia. Today, like Kellogg, he sees negotiation the only way beyond the impasse. Or is Trump listening to his designated secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth? The former Fox News host rants that Putin probably won’t go much further than the Polish border. Putin’s objectives three years ago were to subjugate Ukraine and install a puppet regime in Kyiv as a way to renew the Great Russian Empire. Putin has failed. Apparently, Hegseth imagines giving Putin a second chance.
It’s been clear since Trump appeared with Macron and Zelenskyy as de facto president that U.S. foreign policy will fundamentally change, Europes could have prepared itself for this, but nothing has happened. Macron is a man of big talk and little action. Olaf Scholz is reluctant to speak or act. Most other Europeans are looking to Scholz and Macron, except for Poland and the Baltic states, who are serious about defending freedom. Finland and Sweden are about defending freedom, too; after all, that’s why they joined NATO. But after Jan. 20, Europe will have to answer two questions.
What Lies Ahead for Europe?
First what’s going to happen if Trump actually manages a ceasefire? Will Europe provide security for Ukraine either with the Americans or alone? Will it provide security only in the form of a U.N. peacekeeping mission or as a geopolitical power? Who will send troops to Ukraine? Germany, as well? There are no agreements on this issue among France, Germany and Poland. Nor among Olaf Scholz, Boris Pistorius and Annalena Baerbock. Friedrich Merz is also still undecided for the time being. Trump will not achieve a ceasefire within 24 hours of taking office. But what if he does so within 24 days? Then Berlin will be unable to act.
Second, what lies ahead if Trump leaves Ukraine to its own devices? (or leaves them to the Europeans or Putin?) What will the Europeans be ready and willing to do, financially and militarily? What will Germany be ready and willing to do if it is no longer “only” about Taurus rockets? It’s all about how Europe will take care of itself without Uncle America. It’s up to fate.
In discussing possible protection for Ukraine, Jan van Aken, the leader of the Left Party, suggested that the demarcation line could be best secured by Chinese U.N. peacekeepers because the Russians won’t shoot at the Chinese. I cannot say whether that was meant to be a joke. But this remark shows the level of discussion abouot security policy in Germany: Few are taking it seriously.
*Editor’s note: Although accurately translated, this quoted passage could not be independently verified.