Trump Wants to End the Ukraine War in '24 Hours,' But Putin Wants to Win
And what Biden's decision on long-range missiles means for Trump and Putin
A warm welcome to all new subscribers. I love writing this newsletter but it does take a lot of work. If you enjoy it and can afford it, please do consider taking out a paid subscription. And please do share this free post with anyone you think might be interested and encourage them to subscribe too. As always, I value your comments and feedback!
On June 14, Russian leader Vladimir Putin outlined terms for ending his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. They were: annexing four Ukrainian provinces which Moscow does not fully control, demilitarization and "denazification" of Ukraine, abandonment of Kyiv's plans to join NATO, and an end to Western sanctions. This past week, Russian officials reiterated Moscow's maximalist goals, saying that "peace" can only be achieved when the West stops providing military aid to Ukraine and proposals to freeze the current frontlines are "even worse" than the Russia-friendly Minsk Agreements that followed the initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014.
Into this hardened position comes U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who has repeatedly vowed to end the war in "24 hours." He has declined to offer specifics on how he would end the war, but many of his supporters believe he can. One Trump voter told the New York Times: "I don’t know how,” the supporter said. "But he’s going to end them," referring to the wars in Israel and Ukraine.
However, the gulf between Putin's proposal and the Trump transition team's proposals to freeze the current frontlines remain an unbridgeable divide. Putin wants Kyiv to surrender. However, Ukraine has put forth a "victory plan," increasing Western military aid and a clear promise for NATO accession. According to the Wall Street Journal, plans favored by Trump's transition team include freezing the current frontlines, not allowing Ukraine to join NATO for 20 years, and giving Ukraine lots of weapons to defend itself. It's not clear who would enforce this ceasefire, but the transition team wants someone else -- not American troops -- to do so, like the Europeans or a U.N.-sponsored force. (Russia is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and would almost certainly veto any such force.)
But why would Putin agree to such a messy deal with European troops so close to Russian territory? Russia's beleaguered economy and increasing losses -- Ukraine has recently estimated Russian casualties at 1,690 per day and over 700,000 total -- might seem like reasons why Putin would accept a deal, but I would argue that the opposite is true. Russia has sacrificed so many men -- more than most observers, myself included, thought was possible -- and oriented its economy so fully towards war that accepting anything less than full Ukrainian capitulation would be too threatening to regime survival. In other words, a costly war is preferable to a messy peace.
Adding to the difficulty of potential negotiations, Ukraine controls some 200 square miles of territory in the Western Russian region of Kursk, and Moscow has demanded Ukraine withdraw before any talks start. Kyiv has rejected this demand. Putin's November 15 comment that negotiations should "proceed from the new territorial realities" likely indicates a desire to retake this territory. U.S. and Ukrainian officials said last week that 50,000 Russian and North Korean troops have amassed in the Kursk region for a possible counteroffensive. However, according to George Barros, who leads the Russia and Geospatial Intelligence teams at the Washington-based Institute for Study of War (ISW), it's not clear whether the troops are there for a counteroffensive or as part of a rotation: "We don't know for certain whether North Koreans are deploying as replacements or whole tactical units. We've collected some limited indicators that the schema is replacements, but it's not confirmed," he said in an email to Public Sphere.
While the Biden Administration stalled for months, on November 17, it finally allowed Ukraine to use long-range U.S. weapons to strike into Russia. However, the authorization is so far only for the Russian and North Korean troops threatening Kursk, according to the Times. The think-tank ISW wrote that the partial lifting of the ban "will not completely deprive Russian forces of their sanctuary in Russian territory." Putin has said that the policy change would amount to NATO being "at war" with Russia, but, like many of his threats, it may be a bluff.
Trump's incoming national security adviser, Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), has said he favors "taking the handcuffs off" the weapons. But Trump has nominated more Putin-friendly figures for his cabinet: former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, nominated for Director of National Intelligence, has frequently repeated Russian propaganda lies about Ukraine.
Trump has had a secretive relationship with the Russian autocrat. Bob Woodward reported in his recent book War that Putin and Trump have spoken as many as seven times since Trump left office in 2021, with Trump ushering out an aide to take one call. It's highly unusual for a world leader to talk so frequently with a former president. (Biden last spoke with Putin before the invasion in February 2022.) According to the Washington Post, Trump spoke with Putin on November 7 and told him not to escalate in Ukraine, but the call was done without U.S. government interpreters or the support of the State Department. (The Kremlin issued an unusually strong denial that the call took place.) If Trump wants to fulfill his promise to end the war, he has two choices: keep his "very good relationship" with Putin and capitulate to Russian terms or ramp up military aid to give Kyiv a fighting chance at a settlement that keeps Ukraine an independent state.