Ignore the Pundits – Trump Will Not Let Ukraine be his Afghanistan
By Mark Strand
It was disturbing how the Left was already making assumptions about newly sworn-in President Trump abandoning Ukraine when he and his team have been sending out very opposite signals. Not only has the President himself made clear that Ukrainian sovereignty must be part of any peace deal, but his cabinet nominees have also been signaling a “get tough” approach with Russia.
President Trump does not want Ukraine to be his Afghanistan. The idea of watching Kyiv fall following the U.S. abandonment of an ally is not something this White House would tolerate. There will be no pictures of helicopters on the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon or desperate Afghani’s falling from the wheel wells of C-130s.
Let’s start with what we know about Trump’s governing philosophy, some of which we can glean from his first term. Despite Leftist rhetoric, Trump is no isolationist. His vice president might be, but Trump has always been more realistic than an isolationist. Trump subscribes to “peace through strength,” Ronald Reagan’s operating philosophy. This is the idea that the key to America preventing war is to be so strong that no one screws with us. When necessary, Trump committed U.S. military assets to stop the use of chemical weapons in Syria and to combat ISIS. He significantly increased U.S. spending on NATO while bolstering American military presence in Eastern and Central Europe.
Secondly, Trump believes himself capable of negotiating deals to prevent war. The Abraham Accords were a prime example of this. To negotiate an agreement, one needs leverage. Trump extracted maximum leverage against Iran by sanctioning their oil production, freezing its assets, and reducing its ability to finance terrorist activity in the region. That was made more evident by what happened once the Biden Administration removed those sanctions and released billions of dollars in assets to the Iranian regime. Iran increased funding for Hamas and Hezbollah and launched military attacks on Israel. Part of this was the odd Obama-Biden fetish that believed Iran could be tamed – at the expense of our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Let’s apply this to Ukraine. Trump has made it clear he wants to end the war in Ukraine, for good reason. Too many people are dying, and the prospect of Ukraine regaining currently Russian-occupied territory is diminishing and has been since the failed summer offensive of 2023. The Biden Administration, while always saying the right thing, badly mismanaged the U.S. support for Ukraine. Not only were critical weapons “slow-walked,” but restrictions were put on using delivered weapons in the most effective ways. The Biden Administration barely cracked down on Russian oil exports until after the U.S. presidential election, mainly because they tried to keep American gasoline prices down. Biden went so far as to restrict U.S liquified natural gas (LNG) sales to Europe – one of the most promising ways to bypass the sale of natural gas from Russia.
Trump needs leverage to negotiate peace in Ukraine. Other than holding some Russian territory in Kursk, Ukraine has little leverage.
It is shocking how little popular opposition from the mothers of dead Russian soldiers has impacted Putin’s decision-making. That is a sign that Putin has even tighter dictatorial control over the Russian population than we thought or that the Russian people’s capacity for suffering has not been diminished since World War II. For some perspective, Russia lost as many soldiers in November 2024 as the U.S. lost in the entire Vietnam War. Russia never hesitates to fill our social media with propaganda; maybe we should be exerting a more significant effort to inform the Russian people about how great their losses have been.
Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, has emphasized the incoming President’s determination to preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty. He has also clarified that Trump will likely make loans available to Ukraine for military purchases, a far cry from cutting off Ukraine. However, Ukraine’s problem is not likely to be a lack of weapons but people. Ukraine needs a peace deal as soon as possible.
Trump’s nominee advanced another way to gain leverage to be Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent. At his confirmation hearing, he stated, “If any officials in the Russian Federation are watching this confirmation hearing, they should know that if I’m confirmed, and if President Trump requests as part of his strategy to end the Ukraine war, that I will be 100% on board from taking sanctions up, especially on the Russian oil majors to levels that would bring the Russian Federation to the table.”
Trump’s Secretary of State and National Security Advisor nominees, Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Mike Waltz are also noted as being hawks regarding Russia. Both have been clear that Russia must negotiate a realistic deal to end the war.
Trump National Security Advisor Mike Waltz recently said, “This is World War One trench warfare with literally a meat grinder of people running across these open fields in eastern Ukraine. But with World War Three escalation consequences.”
President Trump has appointed people who are not isolationists but realists willing to use leverage over Russia to force them to the negotiation table. One early signal Trump could send would be a small arms package to Ukraine, telling Putin that the U.S. is not abandoning Ukraine.
And let’s not forget Trump’s desire to visit China as soon as possible. China is economically vulnerable for many reasons. Massive U.S. tariffs and the withdrawal of American companies from China would have severe consequences. If one country has leverage over Russia, it is China. There is little reason why President Xi Jinping would not offer to pressure Russia in exchange for a break on tariffs or sanctions on his own country. And China is also the only country that can put pressure on North Korea to end its foolish foreign escapade into Russia. If any North Koreans are left to withdraw, China would have the greatest chance to influence that decision.
The question is, what will the framework of a deal look like? Ukraine will likely be able to regain some territory in exchange for withdrawing from Kursk. A permanent cease-fire along existing battle lines is more likely. It is hard to imagine Zelinsky having any mandate to trade unoccupied territory for currently Russian-occupied territory. Ukraine may have to put off NATO membership for a lengthy amount of time, but if NATO member countries are sent to Ukraine to guarantee its security, it is almost as good. Attempts by Russia to restart the war by attacking British, Polish, or French troops would have the same effect as an attack on a NATO country. It is not likely something Putin can accomplish without inviting squadrons of F-35s to visit his country.
It would be to our advantage if Ukraine could join NATO. It has one of the most powerful militaries in Europe and is now experienced in modern warfare in ways most of Europe is not. It also prevents the United States from having to defend the 1200-mile border to the west of Ukraine, consisting of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. Having said that, Putin is not likely to concede that point.
The European Union could make itself useful by rushing Ukrainian membership. Everything the EU does is slow, but it would be wise to incorporate Ukraine quickly. One of the reasons corruption was significantly reduced in the former Warsaw Pact country was their adoption into the European Union. The EU offers financial and other incentives to reduce corruption and has developed significant expertise in reducing corruption in the former communist block countries. For this and other economic reasons, Ukraine would benefit from rapid admission into the E.U.
So, the framework most likely to be negotiated by President Trump will be a cease-fire along the roughly existing battle lines and a commitment to delay Ukrainian membership in NATO by twenty years. It would include the ability of European nations to unilaterally guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty with peacekeeping forces while Ukraine rebuilds and reorganizes its military forces.
Putin doesn’t get that much in this deal. He might hold out for a formal annexation of Crimea, which would go down hard in Ukraine. But, if he can suppress any domestic protest in the face of 700,000-800,000 Russian casualties, then he can probably sell this at home in exchange for reductions in existing economic sanctions and any new ones imposed by the Trump Administration.
Let’s start with what we know about Trump’s governing philosophy, some of which we can glean from his first term. Despite Leftist rhetoric, Trump is no isolationist. His vice president might be, but Trump has always been more realistic than an isolationist. Trump subscribes to “peace through strength,” Ronald Reagan’s operating philosophy. This is the idea that the key to America preventing war is to be so strong that no one screws with us. When necessary, Trump committed U.S. military assets to stop the use of chemical weapons in Syria and to combat ISIS. He significantly increased U.S. spending on NATO while bolstering American military presence in Eastern and Central Europe.
Secondly, Trump believes himself capable of negotiating deals to prevent war. The Abraham Accords were a prime example of this. To negotiate an agreement, one needs leverage. Trump extracted maximum leverage against Iran by sanctioning their oil production, freezing its assets, and reducing its ability to finance terrorist activity in the region. That was made more evident by what happened once the Biden Administration removed those sanctions and released billions of dollars in assets to the Iranian regime. Iran increased funding for Hamas and Hezbollah and launched military attacks on Israel. Part of this was the odd Obama-Biden fetish that believed Iran could be tamed – at the expense of our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Let’s apply this to Ukraine. Trump has made it clear he wants to end the war in Ukraine, for good reason. Too many people are dying, and the prospect of Ukraine regaining currently Russian-occupied territory is diminishing and has been since the failed summer offensive of 2023. The Biden Administration, while always saying the right thing, badly mismanaged the U.S. support for Ukraine. Not only were critical weapons “slow-walked,” but restrictions were put on using delivered weapons in the most effective ways. The Biden Administration barely cracked down on Russian oil exports until after the U.S. presidential election, mainly because they tried to keep American gasoline prices down. Biden went so far as to restrict U.S liquified natural gas (LNG) sales to Europe – one of the most promising ways to bypass the sale of natural gas from Russia.
Trump needs leverage to negotiate peace in Ukraine. Other than holding some Russian territory in Kursk, Ukraine has little leverage.
It is shocking how little popular opposition from the mothers of dead Russian soldiers has impacted Putin’s decision-making. That is a sign that Putin has even tighter dictatorial control over the Russian population than we thought or that the Russian people’s capacity for suffering has not been diminished since World War II. For some perspective, Russia lost as many soldiers in November 2024 as the U.S. lost in the entire Vietnam War. Russia never hesitates to fill our social media with propaganda; maybe we should be exerting a more significant effort to inform the Russian people about how great their losses have been.
Trump’s envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, has emphasized the incoming President’s determination to preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty. He has also clarified that Trump will likely make loans available to Ukraine for military purchases, a far cry from cutting off Ukraine. However, Ukraine’s problem is not likely to be a lack of weapons but people. Ukraine needs a peace deal as soon as possible.
Trump’s nominee advanced another way to gain leverage to be Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent. At his confirmation hearing, he stated, “If any officials in the Russian Federation are watching this confirmation hearing, they should know that if I’m confirmed, and if President Trump requests as part of his strategy to end the Ukraine war, that I will be 100% on board from taking sanctions up, especially on the Russian oil majors to levels that would bring the Russian Federation to the table.”
Trump’s Secretary of State and National Security Advisor nominees, Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Mike Waltz are also noted as being hawks regarding Russia. Both have been clear that Russia must negotiate a realistic deal to end the war.
Trump National Security Advisor Mike Waltz recently said, “This is World War One trench warfare with literally a meat grinder of people running across these open fields in eastern Ukraine. But with World War Three escalation consequences.”
President Trump has appointed people who are not isolationists but realists willing to use leverage over Russia to force them to the negotiation table. One early signal Trump could send would be a small arms package to Ukraine, telling Putin that the U.S. is not abandoning Ukraine.
And let’s not forget Trump’s desire to visit China as soon as possible. China is economically vulnerable for many reasons. Massive U.S. tariffs and the withdrawal of American companies from China would have severe consequences. If one country has leverage over Russia, it is China. There is little reason why President Xi Jinping would not offer to pressure Russia in exchange for a break on tariffs or sanctions on his own country. And China is also the only country that can put pressure on North Korea to end its foolish foreign escapade into Russia. If any North Koreans are left to withdraw, China would have the greatest chance to influence that decision.
The question is, what will the framework of a deal look like? Ukraine will likely be able to regain some territory in exchange for withdrawing from Kursk. A permanent cease-fire along existing battle lines is more likely. It is hard to imagine Zelinsky having any mandate to trade unoccupied territory for currently Russian-occupied territory. Ukraine may have to put off NATO membership for a lengthy amount of time, but if NATO member countries are sent to Ukraine to guarantee its security, it is almost as good. Attempts by Russia to restart the war by attacking British, Polish, or French troops would have the same effect as an attack on a NATO country. It is not likely something Putin can accomplish without inviting squadrons of F-35s to visit his country.
It would be to our advantage if Ukraine could join NATO. It has one of the most powerful militaries in Europe and is now experienced in modern warfare in ways most of Europe is not. It also prevents the United States from having to defend the 1200-mile border to the west of Ukraine, consisting of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. Having said that, Putin is not likely to concede that point.
The European Union could make itself useful by rushing Ukrainian membership. Everything the EU does is slow, but it would be wise to incorporate Ukraine quickly. One of the reasons corruption was significantly reduced in the former Warsaw Pact country was their adoption into the European Union. The EU offers financial and other incentives to reduce corruption and has developed significant expertise in reducing corruption in the former communist block countries. For this and other economic reasons, Ukraine would benefit from rapid admission into the E.U.
So, the framework most likely to be negotiated by President Trump will be a cease-fire along the roughly existing battle lines and a commitment to delay Ukrainian membership in NATO by twenty years. It would include the ability of European nations to unilaterally guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty with peacekeeping forces while Ukraine rebuilds and reorganizes its military forces.
Putin doesn’t get that much in this deal. He might hold out for a formal annexation of Crimea, which would go down hard in Ukraine. But, if he can suppress any domestic protest in the face of 700,000-800,000 Russian casualties, then he can probably sell this at home in exchange for reductions in existing economic sanctions and any new ones imposed by the Trump Administration.
© 2025 Mark Strand
9424 Windy Hill Drive, Nokesville, VA 20181
About Mark Strand:
“So, the framework most likely to be negotiated by President Trump will be a cease-fire along the roughly existing battle lines and a commitment to delay Ukrainian membership in NATO by twenty years.”
How to put lipstick on a pig.
Freezing the battle lines is a crushing victory for putler. The thieved land will not return unless there is a liberal revolution inside the cauldron of devilry. The odds of this are currently running at a fraction of 1%.
Note : just like the last lot, there is no talk in the Trump team about a victory for Ukraine. The need for reparations, war crimes trials and the protection of Ukraine’s $26 trillion mineral reserves is simply ignored. A huge portion of this could end up under the control of the putler murder gang.
Captain Cornflake says the thieved territory can’t be recovered by force and everyone is taking their lead from that.
Well everyone has their own perspective. This author, outside of being demonstrably in favor of Trumpkov, appears to miss some important points such as rewarding the aggressor (that has always worked in history…NOT); rewarding the war criminals and countless events of state sponsored genocide and importantly that the Moskali economy is on the brink of collapse (at least what I’ve been reading about their economy).