As others have said, I think the constant is that the Trump admin will have lost global allies and the world is destabilised. Europe becomes more independent from the US. Who'd have thunk I would ever advocate for mil. ind. complex in US to lobby their govt for support of Ukraine...but it's needed.
If the conflict is frozen we can expect it to flare up again by 2030 because a reconsolidated Russia and a potentially weaker (unreliable US) NATO means RU has the upper hand so why not go again with all the cards this time?
Only one thing would keep the war going and that's continuance of US support. Whether that will happen after the mineral deal IDK. Even then UA is running out of troops and RU is advancing. My guess is frozen battle lines, DMZ, no NATO, no peacekeepers. Do it soon or the line will be at the Dnepr.
The russia has had to beg Iran and North Korea to forestall a catastrophic loss. It's hard to argue that the US was great during Obama or Biden's terms, and the guy between them was pathetic in comparison. Now that he's back with added dementia it's clear the American century is over.
1. No deal. Russia started this war not just to conquer Ukraine but also to re-make the European security order & unpick NATO enlargement (Dec 21 demands). Putin won't stop till gets it. Trump does not agree. So no deal & war continues. Much then depends on who Trump blames.
2. Trump sells out Ukraine, but not Europe. Deal involves ceasefire w/ no robust guarantees. Europe keeps aid going, buying some arms from the US; maybe US does too. Ukr suffers outflow of men & pol instability when martial law ends. Only minor adjustments to US posture in Eur.
3. US-Russia grand bargain. Pol-econ normalisation involving US accession to Russian terms on Ukr (Istanbul-like) and on Europe (no US troops in post-97 NATO). Europe completely loses trust in US guarantees. Ukr at risk of renewed Russian invasion or state capture. via subversion
4. A better deal. Ceasefire along current lines, no de jure recognition of occupied land, no limits on Ukr forces, continued US/Euro aid to build up Ukr army and some assurances, maybe via Euro troops in Ukr backstopped by US air power & guarantees. Could still be unstable.
5. Europe decides to back Ukraine decisively with arms and sanctions. Russia's position becomes untenable, start losing territory and suffer disruption all across its European part.
In exchange for a path to normal relations Russia agree to reparations and 1991 borders.
In response to US democratic failure and pro-Putin foreign policy under Trump, the UK, EU and other countries form a coalition to support Ukraine militarily & economically. They commit to sustained pressure on Russia until a just peace is achieved, including war crimes prosecutions and reparations.
Europe cannot supply enough arms itself, in perpetuity. It would need to turn to other sellers, including America. Would America sell Europe to arm Ukraine so it could defy a deal sought by ... America?
If Europe decides to do that, a good way to show it’s serious would be to start offing russian agents sitting all over Europe. Otherwise russia can still use those for sabotage and attacks.
That would be great but do you think there is the will among European pols and the public to spend resources on rebuilding national defense and peacekeeping mission?
IMO, considering that the Russian position isnt all that strong (they are running down a lot of resources they wont be able to replace), "a better deal" (supported by EU military aid) should involve Russia returning most or all of the territory it took since the start of the 2022 invasion.
To get to that point you need to keep Ukraine in the field. That involves America acquiescing - either by continuing aid or selling Europe the arms. Is that likely?
It is not up to the USA or any other country to decide and agree anything without Ukrainian consent. Ukraine will decide for itself what a realistic, just and sustainable peace deal comprises. Until that is achieved Ukraine & it's Allies must continue to defend Democracy. 🇬🇧🇪🇺🇺🇦🇬🇧🇪🇺🇺🇦
This one seems most likely to me. Trump has been a Russian asset for decades, now tells himself he actually likes Putin, and is liked in turn. Putin needs the superpower posturing to escape palace coup or even revolution. He'll snatch what he can. EU will become self-reliant or perish. Xi is happy.
russia may want to extend the negotiations as long as possible amid the lack of aid from the U.S. They may try to leverage this time to gain more on the battlefield while showing enthusiasm for negotiations.
I think it's all about Trump's ego. He's trying to get a "peace deal" at any price, because he honestly thinks it'll get him a Nobel Peace Prize (Obama had one, and he's obsessed with Obama.) But the fastest and easiest way to get a deal is to acquiesce to Russia, so I fear that's where he's headed.
Return to 2014 borders, Ukraine NATO membership, 100 mile DMZ at the border maintained by outside troops, seized Russian assets go to Ukraine plus other reparations.
Otherwise keep fighting, Russia is about done.
Option 3 sounds most realistic to me. Aside from opportunities for US mineral extraction business in Russia I suspect he would privately enjoy sticking it to half of Europe.
I don't think those are the only options. Russia is big, but not invincible. Afghanistan defeated it, and Finland did twice, both against the apparent odds. Fund and equip Ukraine properly and a full victory isn't inconceivable. Lesser options probably won't deliver lasting peace, either.
The one way I differ from the majority of pro-Ukraine commenters is the extent of vulnerability after a cease-fire. Unless Ukr is insane, they will spend every moment of a cease-fire preparing defense in depth. Yes, Putin might be able to wear them down, but it'll be even harder than this war was.
Comments
In exchange for a path to normal relations Russia agree to reparations and 1991 borders.
Otherwise keep fighting, Russia is about done.
Loss of trust in the US administration.