The Economist: Ceasefire could open two competing visions of Ukraine’s future
Western support may help Ukraine rebuild and reform and break Russia's plans for another invasion in the future.
The Economist writes that the most significant concern regarding Donald Trump’s efforts to end Russia’s war against Ukraine is the possibility that he might impose a catastrophic deal on Kyiv.
During his election campaign, Trump pledged to prioritize US domestic interests and swiftly end the Russia-Ukraine war, potentially compromising Ukraine’s territorial integrity. However, it is still clear how the US president-elect would make Russia start peace negotiations with Kyiv.
Russian leader Vladimir Putin has indicated a willingness to freeze the front line, even though Russia currently occupies only 70-80% of the four Ukrainian regions it has claimed to annex. If Trump supports Ukraine in abandoning its NATO membership bid and lifts sanctions on Russia, Putin will achieve most of his military goals, while Ukraine will suffer a devastating defeat.
“What is more, Russia’s president would not respect a piece of paper. He would hope that post-war Ukraine, consumed by infighting and recriminations against the West, would fall into his lap. If it did not, he might seize more territory by force,” reads the report.
Capitulating to Putin would represent a public defeat for both America and Trump. This failure would extend to Asia, emboldening America’s adversaries and causing its allies to lose trust and “curry favor with China instead.”
The report suggests that Trump should negotiate a deal that ensures Ukraine’s security for at least four years of his term, during which Ukraine could make significant progress.
“Mr Trump has leverage over Russia if he wants to use it. Because he is unpredictable, he could threaten to go all-in with Ukraine by sending it more and deadlier weapons, and Mr Putin would have to take him seriously,” the journalists wrote.
However, they contend that restoring Ukraine’s 1991 borders remains an unattainable dream. While Ukraine has the moral and legal right to all its territory, it lacks the soldiers, weapons, and ammunition to reclaim it. Therefore, the primary goal should be to ensure Ukraine thrives on the territory it currently controls.
The best way to protect Ukraine would be its NATO membership. Journalists believe this would prevent Ukraine from becoming an unstable state vulnerable to co-option by Putin, whose ultimate aim is European destabilization and dominance.
“It would also bring Europe’s largest, most innovative, and battle-hardened army and defense industry into the alliance—something that Mr. Trump might welcome because NATO would then need fewer American troops,” said the journalists.
Ukraine’s NATO membership would require unanimous approval from all 32 members, including Hungary and Türkiye, which previously delayed Sweden and Finland’s accession.
A ceasefire would open two competing scenarios for Ukraine’s future. Putin expects to benefit: Ukraine would rot, Russia would rearm, and Western interest in supporting Kyiv would wane.
With Western support, however, Ukraine could use the pause to rebuild its economy, reform its political system, and deter Russian aggression.
“The task is to ensure that this vision prevails over its grim alternative,” The Economist added.
Related:
- Trump taps pro-Ukraine retired general as special peace envoy
- US urges Ukraine to lower conscription age to 18 while Ukraine faces weapon shortages amid Western arms delays
- US readies $ 725 million arms package for Ukraine
- Biden won’t fully utilize Kyiv arms aid before Trump takes office, WSJ claims
