U.S. Plan for a Quick Ukraine Ceasefire Is a Non-Starter

At the Munich Security Conference later this week, US Vice President JD Vance and envoy to Ukraine and Russia Keith Kellogg will use the stage to present European leaders with part of the Trump administration’s peace plan for the region. Nato membership for Kyiv will be excluded, and Russia will effectively be left with the Ukrainian land it currently holds — with the possible exception of a territorial swap involving Ukrainian withdrawal from Russia’s Kursk province, if its army can hold the territory long enough.

These “concessions” are in fact closer to recognitions of reality. Donald Trump has no intention of taking on additional security commitments in Europe, and it is militarily impossible for Ukraine to reconquer its lost territories unless Washington intervenes directly — which the US President certainly will not do.

Assuming that Trump’s recent conversation with Vladimir Putin was sufficiently frank, certain factors should now be obvious. Of these, the most important is that the idea floated by US officials of a ceasefire before a comprehensive settlement will be dead on arrival. The Russians have made clear they will not agree to this, given that their own military advances and the threat of Ukrainian collapse are Putin’s principal points of leverage in negotiations. If America fails to grasp this, a great deal of time — and many more lives — will be wasted.

The other reason why the Trump administration should give up on the idea of an early ceasefire is that there are many people in Ukraine, Europe and Washington who want the talks to fail in a way that can be blamed on Russia. Consequently, they could suggest that there is implacable opposition in Moscow to a compromise peace. The genuine hardliners in Russia, who are indeed opposed to compromise, would no doubt be glad to have evidence that the West is making impossible demands.