A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
OPINION:
First, President Trump muscled Volodymyr Zelenskyy into accepting, without security guarantees or other preconditions, a 30-day ceasefire in the brutal war that Vladimir Putin has been waging against Ukraine for more than three years.
Next, Mr. Trump sent a message asking Mr. Putin whether he was willing to do the same.
“We agree with the proposal to cease hostilities,” the Russian ruler said at a Moscow press conference last week. “But we have to bear in mind that this ceasefire must be aimed at a long-lasting peace, and it must look at the root causes of the crisis.”
Allow me to translate: He said no.
Mr. Putin then met with Aleksander Lukashenko, president of Belarus, a Russian vassal state, while Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s special envoy, was made to cool his heels for eight hours. Do I need to translate that message?
When Mr. Witkoff was finally permitted to enter the Kremlin, Mr. Putin presented him with a list of demands and concessions he wanted before a ceasefire that would make Ukraine more vulnerable to future aggression.
Now it’s showtime: time for Mr. Trump to show his mettle by putting maximum pressure on Russia, an American adversary, as he has on Ukraine, a nation that wants nothing more than to be an American ally.
On a Tuesday phone call, Messrs. Trump and Putin agreed to “an energy and infrastructure ceasefire.” Does that mean Ukrainian kindergartens and hospitals are still fair game? We should know within hours.
Of this, you can be sure: The dictators in Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang, all making contributions to Mr. Putin’s war against Ukraine, are watching this test of Mr. Trump’s strength, will and leadership. The outcome will guide their future actions.
Because the president’s approach to problem-solving is deal-making, he has positioned himself as the intermediary between Mr. Putin and Mr. Zelenskyy.
Between Vladmir and Volodymyr — the former a dictator, the latter a president elected in a multiparty democracy — there is no moral equivalence.
Mr. Zelenskyy is fighting a defensive war. For him, winning means Ukraine retains its sovereign independence, expels Russian invaders from Ukrainian lands and welcomes home the thousands of Ukrainian children whom Mr. Putin has kidnapped and taken to Russia for brainwashing and forcible adoption.
Mr. Putin, by contrast, is fighting a war of conquest. For him, winning means turning Ukraine into a colony or, failing that, a vassal like Belarus.
I don’t think Mr. Trump or anyone else can put Russia and Ukraine on a “path to peace.” Predators don’t make peace with their prey. What is achievable is a cessation of hostilities leading to a frozen conflict.
How long can the conflict remain frozen? The conflict between the two Koreas has been on ice for 72 years, thanks to the United States.
Freezing the conflict would mean that Russian troops continue to illegally occupy about 18% of Ukraine’s territory, along with Crimea, which was conquered and annexed in 2014.
It would also mean that Ukraine survives as a political entity and a unique culture, with most Ukrainians not forced to live under the jackboot of a former KGB lieutenant colonel.
Such an outcome would not represent a victory for justice, but it would be preferable to the bloody status quo.
If Mr. Trump achieves this, he will deserve plaudits and be able to turn his full energies to the many other foreign policy crises he has inherited from President Biden.
Last week, Mr. Trump warned that he could “do things” that would be “devastating for Russia.”
Researchers at my think tank, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, have compiled a list of economic sanctions that would bite like a crocodile rather than a mosquito. Sticking with the animal metaphors, the sanctions would eat into Russia’s only cash cow: its oil revenue.
To add pressure, Mr. Trump could increase the flow of weapons to Ukraine and remove restrictions imposed by Mr. Biden on the use of those weapons to strike targets inside Russia.
Would that induce Mr. Putin to agree to a ceasefire without preconditions?
Many military analysts say he is running low on munitions and has insufficient human cannon fodder to replace the corpses he has been laying down to take additional inches of Ukrainian soil. So, he may see a temporary ceasefire as in his interest, though he is shrewd enough not to acknowledge that.
Should there be a ceasefire, Ukraine would need to rearm to the gills to turn itself into (last animal metaphor for today, I promise) a porcupine: difficult for the predator to swallow.
The Europeans, particularly the Germans, should foot the bill. They could also spend the $300 billion in frozen Russian funds held in Europe.
Stationing European peacekeepers, particularly British and French, along the current lines of control could help prevent the conflict from reigniting.
As for Mr. Putin, he would claim that he had not spilled blood and spent treasure in vain because he enlarged Mother Russia and established a firm land bridge to Crimea, where the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based.
Would Ukraine, America and our European allies need to recognize these Russian conquests? No, just as the U.S. and most other Western nations never recognized the Soviet takeover of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1940. These nations now fear what Mr. Putin would do to them should he defeat Ukraine.
A ceasefire leading to a frozen conflict would give Ukrainians time to rest and rebuild, always keeping in mind: Si vis pacem, para bellum (If you want peace, prepare for war).
That is a more trustworthy “security guarantee” than anything written on a scrap of paper.
• Clifford D. May is the founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a columnist for The Washington Times and host of the “Foreign Policy” podcast.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.