President Donald Trump has engaged in peace talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. His new plan to resolve the war in Ukraine shifts the US away from direct involvement, placing the responsibility for Ukraine's security in the hands of Europe. This proposal deserves support, even as we continue to push for a broader, global commitment to peace in Palestine
As we approach the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a significant shift is unfolding that could bring an end to this devastating conflict. This change isn’t driven by a battlefield victory, but by a dramatic reversal of U.S. policy—shifting from being the primary supplier of weapons and funding that has prolonged the war, to taking on the role of peacemaker.
Donald Trump, the former U.S. president, has pledged to end the war in Ukraine if re-elected. On February 12, 2025, he took a step toward fulfilling that promise with a 90-minute call to Russian President Vladimir Putin, a conversation President Joe Biden had avoided since the war began. The two leaders agreed to immediately begin peace negotiations. Trump then spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for an hour, discussing the conditions for what Zelenskyy referred to as a "lasting and reliable peace."
Simultaneously, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth presented Trump’s new approach at a NATO Defense Contact Group meeting in Brussels. “The bloodshed must stop. This war must end,” Hegseth declared.
Trump’s Peace Plan for Ukraine
Trump’s plan consists of two key components. First, Hegseth confirmed that Trump intends to end the war through diplomacy by bringing both Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table. Second, the U.S. will shift responsibility for arming Ukraine and securing its future to European NATO members.
This decision to place the onus of security on Europe is a transparent effort to shield the U.S. from ongoing responsibility for a conflict it has significantly influenced by sabotaging earlier peace talks. Should European countries refuse this role, or if Zelenskyy or Putin reject the plan, the U.S. may still find itself obligated to play a larger role in Ukraine’s security than Trump or many Americans would prefer. Zelenskyy himself remarked on February 11 that “Security guarantees without America are not real security guarantees.”
The Biden administration’s refusal to engage in peace talks has lasted almost three years, rejecting negotiations following the disruption of talks in April 2022. President Biden had insisted that Ukraine must reclaim all its internationally recognized territories, including Crimea and Donbas, regions that have been at the heart of conflict since the 2014 U.S.-backed coup in Kyiv.
Hegseth opened the door to peace by telling European allies, “We must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.”
He continued, outlining Trump’s plan: “A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not start again. This must not be Minsk 3.0. The United States does not believe NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. Instead, any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops.”
For years, NATO membership for Ukraine was a point of tension with Russia. Trump and Hegseth’s clear rejection of this prospect is a crucial step toward recognizing that neutrality may offer Ukraine the best path to coexist peacefully with both Russia and the West, without becoming a battleground.
Trump and Hegseth expect European nations to assume primary responsibility for Ukraine’s security, while the Pentagon shifts focus to Trump’s two main priorities: deporting immigrants and confronting China. Hegseth framed this as “a division of labor that maximizes our comparative advantages in Europe and the Pacific.”
Hegseth clarified that, should European peacekeepers be deployed to Ukraine, they should do so under a non-NATO mission and not be covered by NATO’s Article 5 defense clause. “There will be no U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine,” he stated. Europe, not the U.S., must shoulder the burden of Ukraine’s future aid.
By specifying that NATO forces will not operate under the alliance’s mutual defense commitment in Ukraine, Trump’s plan further distances the country from NATO’s framework, even though many European NATO members remain skeptical.
Russia’s Likely Response
While Trump’s diplomacy-centric approach aims to bring both Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table, the position of European NATO members will be crucial. As NATO members, they may demand a role in the peace process, especially regarding security guarantees for Ukraine. Trump’s desire to shield the U.S. from further involvement may be challenged by European countries unwilling to assume such a heavy responsibility without American backing.
Hegseth’s mention of the Minsk Accords highlights the similarities with Trump’s proposal. The original agreements of 2014 and 2015 largely kept peace in Eastern Ukraine until 2022. However, Western leaders eventually admitted that they used the relative calm of Minsk to militarize Ukraine, aiming to recover the disputed Donetsk and Luhansk regions by force, rather than honoring the Accords’ terms.
Russia is unlikely to agree to substantial Western military presence or bases in Ukraine, a key point of contention. President Putin has consistently emphasized that a neutral Ukraine is essential for long-term peace.
European and American Reactions
Trump’s proposal has led to pushback from both European leaders and American hawks. Some European officials feel blindsided by the idea of the U.S. making significant concessions without consulting them first. There are fears that forcing Ukraine to give up on NATO membership could compromise its security and independence.
In the U.S., there has been criticism from Republican war hawks, while many Democrats, who have supported continued U.S. involvement in the war, may attempt to undermine Trump’s efforts. However, some Democrats may recognize this moment as an opportunity to reclaim the party’s historical role as the more dovish of the two U.S. political factions and provide fresh leadership on foreign policy.
The Way Forward
Trump’s peace initiative offers a fresh opportunity to end the war in Ukraine. His approach should be embraced, as it invites the U.S. and its allies to reexamine their roles in securing Ukraine’s future. It’s also an invitation for Europe to step up and take more responsibility for its own security, rather than relying on the U.S.
However, those of us who desire peace in Ukraine must also point out the contradictions in Trump’s foreign policy—particularly his vocal condemnation of the war in Ukraine while supporting policies that have perpetuated violence in Palestine, as noted by the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor.
In the end, Trump’s peace plan marks a critical turning point, but the world must demand more
0 Comments