As the Administration of President Donald Trump engages Russian President Vladimir Putin, it should now be evident that there will be no tidy solution to end the war in Ukraine. Despite the damage it has rendered to Russia’s reputation and economy—to say nothing of casualties approaching one million—Mr. Putin seems intent on continuing the war until he secures key terrain.
Mr. Putin’s overarching goal was to reincorporate Ukraine into the Soviet-like empire that he seeks to resurrect. He now knows that ultimate goal has proven elusive for his forces who are facing a determined Ukrainian people unwilling to live under Russian domination as a client state.
Facing fierce opposition by Ukraine, Mr. Putin’s near-term objective is to secure the current positions his forces hold in Ukraine’s eastern region. If Russia is successful in gaining additional strategic territory there, its Army will be well-positioned to renew offensive operations in the future. Therefore, Mr. Putin will continue fighting until Ukraine is deprived of its most heavily fortified positions on the frontline to defend against future Russian attacks that could spill out and across open Ukrainian plains toward major urban areas.
Moreover, to secure the best possible posture for a negotiated settlement, Russia hopes to compel the US, Ukraine, and NATO to negotiate among themselves until a solution is offered up that is satisfactory to President Putin. In the meantime—absent a ceasefire—Russia will continue to attack Ukraine to gain a firmer hold along the frontline while delaying negotiations until the west serves up something to its liking.
Nonetheless, there are hopeful reports that Mr. Putin is willing to accept the provision of “security guarantees” for Ukraine by the US and NATO. However, he is adamant in opposing membership for Ukraine in NATO, which suggests Mr. Putin will work to ensure any security guarantees are paper thin. Yet, if those guarantees embrace NATO’s Article 5 standard that “an attack on one is an attack on all,” then Ukraine would have the comfort of the alliance standing firmly with it and against any future aggression by Russia.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump appears less concerned about a ceasefire than a final peace agreement. Nevertheless, hostilities must cease to prevent further Russian advances. What is needed is not a ceasefire, but rather a comprehensive armistice that accomplishes several broader objectives.
First, the US and NATO should insist on an armistice by 1 November. Leveraging Ukraine’s cold and harsh winter months to cease hostilities would be welcomed by both sides in this conflict. While an armistice would not end the war, per se, it would be a cessation of hostilities to permit the advancement of other confidence-building measures.
Second, that armistice should require hostile forces to withdraw to positions sufficient to establish a demilitarized zone (DMZ) that will be supervised by a peacekeeping force that should include the US, NATO, and Belarus, the latter a Russian ally. That DMZ should also include a no-flight zone (NFZ) enforced by antiaircraft defenses manned by the peacekeeping force.
Third, the armistice must require a full prisoner-of-war exchange that include the 20,000 Ukrainian children that were seized by Russia since 2022. Doing so will send a strong message that both sides are ready to seriously deal with peace negotiations.
Fourth, any peace settlement should incorporate an internationally supervised referendum in the war-torn eastern region of Ukraine to determine if citizens there wish to be part of Russia or remain in Ukraine. Such self-determination is a core principle of international law, and the US and NATO should insist on it.
The results of that vote—one that must be scrupulously supervised by impartial observers—is essential in establishing any settlement concerning who will control which areas along the Russian-Ukrainian border. If this feature is absent, the peace settlement will be illegitimate. The armistice will be merely a fragile period of attenuated violence that will likely devolve into renewed hostilities.
Finally, an authoritative peace commission must be established that does not involve the United Nations. The UN has relinquished any legitimacy it had in establishing peace. By embracing the sentiments of state sponsors of terror, like Iran, the UN has disintegrated its credibility. The peace commission must, therefore, be composed of the US, Ukraine, Russia, and European nations of significance who are determined to reach an acceptable solution for both sides in this war. That includes the huge amount of reconstruction and restitution that Ukraine needs to rebuild after the Russian invasion.
None of this will be easy to achieve. Indeed, it will take patience coupled with the determination not to be manipulated by Mr. Putin whose unfulfilled objective is to establish a new Russian empire. The US and NATO must insist on the requirements above. Otherwise, there will be no serious-minded effort toward a lasting peace in Ukraine.
1 Comment
Judith Glick-Smith · August 21, 2025 at 3:51 pm
You are spot on, Scott! I have been so curious as to your thoughts on this matter. Thank you for articulating this so clearly.