Introduction
After the Alaska Summit between U.S. (United States) President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15, 2025[1], efforts to end mass killings in the Russia-Ukraine War have intensified with subsequent diplomatic efforts led by President Trump. Accordingly, after a telephone diplomacy with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President Trump hosted President Zelenskyy[2], and later European leaders[3] at the Oval Office in the White House. In this piece, I will evaluate President Trump’s recent intensive efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine War and discuss potential future scenarios. Let me first put forward some basic points to enrich the discussion.
Key Points ahead of the Peace Talks
First of all, everyone should understand President Trump’s position. President Trump is not appeasing President Putin or Russia, and he does not repeat the mistakes of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who tried to live with Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich in the late 1930s. Trump never said he supports Russia attacking Ukraine and taking some portions of land from this Western-leaning country trying to accede to NATO and the European Union since 2014. Rather, by his “Principled Realism” understanding, which most of the American scholars find very domestic-oriented and slogan-like[4], President Trump attempts to set borders and establish a new type of political relationship between Moscow and Kyiv that will last decades without necessarily creating new wars and security risks for both sides. To do this, Trump makes a realistic calculation of the existing hard and soft power capabilities of Russia and Ukraine. Remember his first and eventful meeting with Zelenskyy in late February 2025[5], where he mentioned the risk of World War III. Trump’s mind is clear; Russia is militarily stronger compared to Ukraine, and as a former superpower, it has -like many other states- some regional geopolitical ambitions. For Moscow, keeping Kyiv, one of the few remaining Russian allies in Moscow’s “near abroad”, on their side and preventing its slip into NATO is vital. For practical security reasons also, without a buffer zone or state, Russia neighboring NATO is not a good idea, despite the fact that Russia is already neighboring NATO through Latvia, Estonia, and most recently Finland. In short, President Trump is not an appeaser or a KGB (FSB) agent; he tries to stop this war and bring Russia closer to the collective West again for two basic reasons. First, to stop the mass killings of Ukrainians, who of course heroically defend their land because of a geopolitical miscalculation made by their state elite, and second, to focus on China rather than Russia for the future of U.S. global leadership.
Secondly, although French President Emmanuel Macron’s accusation of Russia as the “aggressor state”[6] who did not comply with the United Nations (UN) Charter and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum is correct, one should not forget that clear verbal security guarantees (“not one inch eastward” speech by James Baker) given to Moscow[7] following the dissolution of the USSR were also not kept by NATO members. So, there is a concrete reason why the Russian state elite, surrounded by “siloviki”, does not trust Western countries and NATO as they lived the 1990s and early 2000s witnessing NATO expanding constantly towards the east at the expense of Russian security. In that sense, not only Russia, but both sides are not fully sincere about their geopolitical aims and friendly approach to the other side. The exaggerated negative portrayal of President Putin and Russia in the Western press and academia is also wrong; Putin is not Hitler, he is a nationalist, realistic, and authoritarian statesman trying to maximize the national interests of his country as a man completely raised by the Russian security bureaucracy from his very youth. Putin thinks geopolitically in a manner contrary to European leaders, who constantly emphasize the importance of international law. So, neither side could speak the same language and recognize the red lines of the other side, as they did not understand each other very well.
Thirdly, since the COVID-19 pandemic, which deeply affected the logistical lines, and the increasing U.S. isolationism symbolized with Trumpism and MAGA movement, we have entered into a more multipolar-leaning world. Just look at these numbers; according to the IMF, as of April 2025[8], China tops the list of purchasing power parity (PPP) per year, with almost 41 trillion U.S. dollars whereas the U.S. is around 30,5 trillion U.S. dollars. China, thanks to its massive size and production (export)-oriented ecosystem, completely changed the global economy in the last two decades. Beijing is further pushing to dominate global trade with the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) project. So, in short, the U.S. is not the economic leader of the world anymore, and that is how Putin could easily risk being isolated by Western-led economic institutions with hidden Chinese support behind it during his attack towards Ukraine. In this sense, China, BRICS+, and the Global South countries create a favorable ground for Putin to survive despite the heavy sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the EU. It is true that if sanctions become more severe and begin to target Western countries still doing business with Moscow (e.g. Hungary, Slovakia, and most importantly Türkiye), Russia will be hurt more. However, again, it does not guarantee the collapse of the Putin regime or a significant policy change in the Kremlin concerning the war in Ukraine. With China, North Korea, and Iran’s full support, coupled with other BRICS+ members’ partial help, Moscow can stand for long years against the collective West. Remember the fact that President Trump praised Putin for his battle against the hawks in Moscow in the last Alaska meeting, a sign that post-Putin period might be even more hawkish.
Fourthly, the West does not have many options unless they decide to confront Russia as a whole, which could certainly trigger World War III. The Biden administration was transparent and decisive about not directly being involved in the war against Russia, and they decided to support Ukraine with maximum capacity so that they could defend their country on their own. However, in case President Trump’s peace initiative fails, again, there would be only two options: (a) supporting Ukraine from behind or (b) engaging in a war against Russia. Since the second option is not welcomed by many leaders in the West due to the security risks posed by heavily nuclear-armed Russia and economic stability, only the first option still seems viable as a coherent policy option.
Lastly, Russia should also be aware of the fact that blatantly ignoring international law and forcefully changing the maps of sovereign countries without their consent would turn the international system into full chaos. This might be encouraging for other countries as well, and the future of the international system could be at stake if Russia does not find a political solution to this crisis. In that sense, as stated by James Ker-Lindsay[9], this might motivate all countries to strive to become nuclear powers to safeguard their territorial integrity against possible attacks from militarily powerful countries. In that sense, criticizing Russia for this crisis is not an anti-Russian attitude, but rather a responsible behavior aimed at saving the international system. I should also add that the recent Azerbaijan-Armenia deal (Trump Peace Corridor or the TRIPP agreement[10]) in Washington, DC, about the Zangezur Corridor under the auspices of President Trump, shows how Moscow alienates its own allies due to its aggressive behaviors.
Terms of the Peace Deal: Giving Russia a Chance to Return
So, after making these key points, what can we discuss in terms of a possible peace deal which would create a permanent truce or preferably peace in the region. Let us focus on some critical issues one by one to draw the blueprint of the peace plan.
1-) AAn ideal peace deal is the one that does not make everyone fully satisfied, but rather the one that saves the faces of everyone. Therefore, a peace deal should not undermine the success of leaders (Putin, Trump, and Zelenskyy) and give each of them something to defend domestically against their own people. For Trump, ending the war in Ukraine and bringing Russia back into the international system would be a great gift that he could sell to his fellow Americans ahead of the congressional elections as the ultimate “dealmaker”. For Putin, making Crimea and some lands in the Donbas region, where most of the population are already pro-Russian and Russian originated, new lands of Russia could be a big success despite heavy losses suffered by the Russian military in the last three years. For Zelenskyy, saving 85-90 % of Ukrainian territories and not being defeated by mighty Russia would be a considerable success, especially if he could obtain concrete security guarantees for a lasting peace.
2-) To solve the crisis, a political agreement is necessary. Without a political agreement and a finalized historical deal, for sure, the international system’s survival would continue to be at stake, especially in case Russia forcefully gets new territories from Ukraine. However, if a comprehensive peace deal including land swaps, security guarantees, and economic incentives is negotiated and settled, this would resemble a complete peace agreement and would not create serious disturbances to the international system. Never forget the very choice of Alaska for the last Putin-Trump meeting. Alaska reminds us that land can be exchanged or sold and bought if two countries reach an agreement. In that sense, Ukraine saving 85-90 % of its territories, obtaining concrete security guarantees from the U.S. and NATO, and receiving economic incentives from international organizations to recover from the war might be the best possible solution. Remember that peacemaking in these conditions is not about getting the ideal, but rather what is possible.
3-) Europe should be on the table as a constructive party during the negotiations. President Macron is right about what he is saying, but it is not his nation, but rather the Ukrainian nation that today risks being annihilated by Russian bombs. Moreover, if Brussels and Washington had been more cautious about Russian red lines, this war might not have even erupted in the first instance. Europe could still aim and wait for the right time to make Kyiv a member of their club, but it seems like it is not the best time for the moment when Russia slowly advances on the field. Therefore, an agreement that would keep Ukraine’s EU membership option open for the future, despite some territorial concessions, should be supported by European powers. Moreover, while Europeans are right to be concerned about their security against Russia, the acceptance of security guarantees for Ukraine, the continuation of NATO with increasing military spending of member states, and the progress for a European Army should not make European capitals fully alert against Russia. The Ukrainian military’s success on the field has shown that Russia cannot compete with a joint European Army or NATO forces on its own. Instead, their advantage comes from their sophisticated nuclear capacity. Therefore, Europeans could work on increasing their nuclear capacity and establish a new European Army unit to address future threats.
4-) While Ukraine’s EU membership should be an open option for the future, for NATO membership, we need a more balanced approach and an Austrian-type of agreement to keep Ukraine a neutral state between Brussels and Moscow. This is not the worst option for Kyiv as long as it enjoys security guarantees from the U.S. and NATO. Moreover, Ukraine’s geographical positioning forces it to be an “intermediate region”, a concept proposed by geopolitical expert Dimitri Kitsikis. Therefore, it is not a choice, but a geopolitical necessity and responsibility for Kyiv to become a neutral state thereby maintaining the balance of the world order.
Conclusion
Finally, in my humble opinion, President Trump is not an appeaser or a stupid politician, and he perfectly knows who he is dancing with. So, if he decides to appear weak, it is not because he is a weak leader, but instead because he tries to save the Ukrainian people and the whole world from a potential disaster. That is why we should support President Trump and hope that he can convince Putin to give up from his maximalist claims and respect Ukrainian sovereignty and independence with certain constitutional and international guarantees given by Kyiv about Ukraine's neutrality. This is the only viable option for peace; otherwise, the mass killings will continue, and the Ukrainian people will have more challenging times.
Cover Photo: CFR
Prof. Dr. Ozan ÖRMECİ
FOOTNOTES
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gj9er0x0zo.
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajxSWocbye8.
[3] https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/trump-hosts-european-leaders-white-house-after-putin-124756286.
[4] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/09557571.2019.1659229?needAccess=true.
[5] https://www.bbc.com/turkce/articles/cly22vpw64lo.
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qObsa0TJAkk.
[7] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early.
[8] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2025/April/weo-report?c=512,914,612,171,614,311,213,911,314,193,122,912,313,419,513,316,913,124,339,638,514,218,963,616,223,516,918,748,618,624,522,622,156,626,628,228,924,233,632,636,634,238,662,960,423,935,128,611,321,243,248,469,253,642,643,939,734,644,819,172,132,646,648,915,134,652,174,328,258,656,654,336,263,268,532,944,176,534,536,429,433,178,436,136,343,158,439,916,664,826,542,967,443,917,544,941,446,666,668,672,946,137,546,674,676,548,556,678,181,867,682,684,273,868,921,948,943,686,688,518,728,836,558,138,196,278,692,694,962,142,449,564,565,283,853,288,293,566,964,182,359,453,968,922,714,862,135,716,456,722,942,718,724,576,936,961,813,726,199,733,184,524,361,362,364,732,366,144,146,463,528,923,738,578,537,742,866,369,744,186,925,869,746,926,466,112,111,298,927,846,299,582,487,474,754,698,&s=PPPGDP,&sy=2024&ey=2025&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder