[Salon] Some kind of peace deal seems increasingly likely in Ukraine. But what kind and when and how?

[Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>]

Defense Priorities

Some kind of peace deal seems increasingly likely in Ukraine. But what kind and when and how?

An M142 high mobility artillery rocket system fires from the Smardan Training Area in Romania. Photo: Army Pfc. Aiden O'Marra / DoD

"Almost three years after Vladimir Putin ordered Russia's troops to invade Ukraine, the war is entering what could be its final phase," writes DEFP scholar Rajan Menon in a new piece at the New York Times, "and a deal to end it seems likelier than ever."

Both combatants are struggling, Menon notes, unable to achieve anything like total victory by military means—and the arrival of President-elect Donald Trump in Washington next month “has put everyone on notice."

The question isn't if the war will eventually reach some kind of negotiated conclusion but when and how. Menon sketches four ways this could go.
 

4 scenarios for Ukraine's endgame

1. NATO membership for Ukraine: what Kyiv wants, but quite unlikely. "At least seven NATO countries are reported to oppose Ukraine's entry or want to defer it indefinitely, including the United States."
    
2. A "coalition of the willing could pledge to protect Ukraine." More plausible, but would Ukraine agree? "The trouble is that Ukraine will want the United States to be among the guarantors," and the Trump administration "is unlikely to sign off on any such arrangement."
    
3. Europe takes the "the primary responsibility for protecting Ukraine." "Ukraine's security will always matter more to Europeans than to Americans," and countries like France and Poland could lead here.
    
4. Armed neutrality. This "would require Russia to pledge not to attack Ukraine and for Ukraine to forswear both NATO membership and the deployment of foreign troops and armaments on its soil." [NYT / Menon]

4 other perspectives on diplomacy for Ukraine

1. "What is the United States trying to achieve in Ukraine given that total victory is not feasible? What is it willing to risk and spend to get there?" [Foreign Policy / Emma Ashford, Joshua Shifrinson, and Stephen Wertheim]
    
2. "[I]mposing costs absent a bargaining process makes further escalation inevitable," and the recent "spiral dynamic—of unrelenting Russian aggression and ever-increasing Western military support for Ukraine to counter Moscow's momentum" is dangerous. [WaPo / Samuel Charap and Jeremy Shapiro]
    
3. Pushing Ukraine toward a deal in which it loses territory would be very difficult. "Trump should do it anyway. Dozens of people, and often hundreds, are dying every day in this grinding war. Mr. Trump should seize the chance to save lives. Nobody is coming to save Ukraine. A settlement will eventually be needed." [NYT / Megan K. Stack]
    
4. In a detailed explainer, DEFP Director of Military Analysis Jennifer Kavanagh dissects how the U.S. can take a defensive approach to Ukraine aid to "put Ukraine in a good position for a settlement that trades some land for a ceasefire and supports Ukraine's longer-term defense." [DEFP / Kavanagh]