Here’s a simple description of what peace should look like in Ukraine: a sovereign nation, its borders protected by international security guarantees, that is part of the European Union and rebuilding its economy with big investments from the United States and Europe.
For all President Donald Trump’s hardball negotiating tactics, and his inexplicable sympathy for the Russian aggressor, such a deal seems to be getting closer, according to what I’m hearing from American, Ukrainian and European officials.
Trump could still blow it by squeezing President Volodymyr Zelensky and his European supporters so hard they choose to fight on despite the awful cost. That would be bad for everyone. This is a moment for Trump to reassure Ukraine and Europe, not try to bludgeon them into a settlement.
Trump’s tilt toward the Kremlin in the National Security Strategy released by the White House last week has complicated negotiations. He seems to want to stand equidistant between a democratic Europe and an autocratic Russia, “to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states,” the document says. That evenhandedness between friend and foe makes no sense, strategically or morally — and it genuinely worries Europe.
Despite this shaky foundation, the Trump peace effort has some promise. U.S. negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are business tycoons, not diplomats. But they seem to recognize that the best protection for Ukraine is a combination of binding security guarantees and future economic prosperity. And they know the package will fail unless Zelensky can sell it to a brave but exhausted country.
The negotiating package involves three documents, a Ukrainian official told me: the peace plan, security guarantees and an economic recovery plan. The talks are far from over, with Ukraine and European supporters planning to release a joint set of amendments Wednesday. But here are some of the ideas being explored, as described to me this week by U.S. and Ukrainian officials:
• Ukraine would join the European Union as early as 2027. This rapid accession worries some E.U. powers. But the Trump administration thinks it can overcome opposition from Hungary, which has been Kyiv’s biggest E.U. opponent. Membership would foster trade and investment. But perhaps most important, it would force Ukraine to control its pernicious culture of corruption in state-owned businesses.
At bottom, this war has been about whether Ukraine can become a European country. President Vladimir Putin detests that idea, with his mystical belief in the oneness of Russia and Ukraine. Quick E.U. membership for Kyiv looks to me like victory.
• The United States would provide what are described as “Article 5-like” security guarantees to protect Ukraine if Russia violates the pact. Ukraine wants the U.S. to sign such an agreement and have Congress ratify it; European nations would sign separate security guarantees. A U.S.-Ukrainian working group is exploring how the details would work — and how fast Ukraine and its allies could respond to any Russian breach.
The reliability of the U.S. guarantees is arguably undermined by language in the National Security Strategy that seems to erode the NATO alliance, on which the guarantees are modeled. But the Trump team says it’s committed to continuing U.S. intelligence support for Ukraine, which is the sine qua non of security.
• Ukraine’s sovereignty would be protected from any Russian veto. But negotiators still seem to be struggling with delicate issues like limits on Ukraine’s army. There’s talk of raising an initial U.S. proposal for a 600,000-soldier army to 800,000, which is roughly what Ukraine would have anyway, postwar. But Kyiv refuses any formal constitutional cap, as Russia wants. Whatever the nominal size of the army, officials say there might be supplements like the national guard or other support forces.
• A demilitarized zone would be established along the entire ceasefire line, all the way from the Donetsk province in the northeast to the cities of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in the south. Behind this DMZ would be a deeper zone in which heavy weapons would be excluded. This line would be closely monitored, much like the DMZ that divides North and South Korea.
• “Land swaps” are an inescapable part of the deal, but Ukraine and the U.S. are still haggling over how the lines would be drawn. Russia demands Ukraine give up the roughly 25 percent of Donetsk it still holds; the Trump team argues that Ukraine is likely to lose much of that in battle over the next six months, in any event, and should make concessions now to spare casualties.
U.S. negotiators have tried various formulas to make this concession more palatable for Zelensky. One idea is that the withdrawal zone would be demilitarized. Zelensky insisted Monday that he has “no legal right” to cede territory to Russia. One way to finesse this issue is the Korea model — to this day, South Korea claims a legal right to the entire peninsula and North Korea asserts the same.
• The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, the largest in Europe, would no longer be under Russian occupation. Negotiators are discussing the possibility that the United States might take over running the facility. Strange as it may sound, that appeals to some Ukrainian officials because it would provide an American tripwire against Russian aggression.
• The Trump administration would seek to foster investment and economic development in Ukraine. One source of funds would be the more than $200 billion in Russian assets now frozen in Europe. Trump’s negotiators already proposed making $100 billion of that stash available to Ukraine for reparations. The amount might be increased.
A more durable engine for reconstruction would be U.S. investment. U.S. officials are talking with Larry Fink, chief executive of the financial giant BlackRock, about reviving its plan for a Ukraine Development Fund that would attract $400 billion for reconstruction. The World Bank would also be involved.
Trump, to be sure, wants similar investment and reconstruction initiatives for Russia. The premise for Kushner and Witkoff, both devout capitalists, is that countries that trade and prosper don’t make war. The rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s confounds that optimism, as does the growing menace of China today. But it’s still a reasonable formula.
Rather than trying to squeeze Zelensky into a deal, the Trump negotiators should work with European allies to create a package of security guarantees and economic incentives that’s attractive enough that Ukrainians would be willing to swallow the bitter pill of giving up the slice of Donetsk that Russia has failed to conquer. Otherwise, Ukrainians will keep fighting.
The biggest mistake Trump can make is to insist that it’s now or never. Diplomacy doesn’t work that way, and good business doesn’t, either. As Trump observed several decades ago, “The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.”
Trump should make a reasonable deal that will last. Otherwise, he might end up with nothing, and this miserable conflict could enter an even more destructive phase.
The post The outlines of a sustainable Ukraine peace deal inch into view appeared first on Washington Post.
