What Is To Be Done? Possibilities for Ending the Ukraine War

by John Whitehead

—

The recent summit meetings between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin and between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky have drawn renewed attention to the ongoing Ukraine war. 

Sparked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the war has now been raging for roughly three-and-a-half years. This benchmark, combined with the inconclusive diplomatic summits, raises the question of how the war might end.

Given the war’s immense costs and the current balance of forces, a genuinely just and satisfactory resolution is probably not possible. Among realistic resolutions of the war, though, some are less bad than others. A settlement of the war that trades a guarantee not to admit Ukraine to NATO for a ceasefire may be the least bad option available. Policymakers on all sides should pursue this option.

The Improbability of Ukrainian Victory

The future, especially the future of wars, is impossible to predict with certainty. Nevertheless, the evidence of recent years suggests that the Ukrainians are unlikely to succeed in pushing the Russians entirely out of their territory.

The Ukrainians’ last significant territorial gains were almost three years ago, in their offensive of fall 2022 that pushed back the Russians. Their offensive in 2023 made little progress in re-capturing territory, and since then the Russians have been very slowly advancing. Given this history, the likelihood of Ukraine (after more than three years of wartime casualties and disruptions to its society) completely reversing the tide of the war and re-taking all the territory Russia has occupied since February 2022 seems low.

Moreover, even such an improbable Ukrainian battlefield success would carry risks. Perhaps the most dangerous moment of the war to date came during Ukraine’s successful fall 2022 offensive. During that period, the Biden administration reportedly feared that Putin might resort to using nuclear weapons rather than suffer total defeat. That catastrophic outcome did not occur, possibly because of international diplomatic pressure and possibly because Ukraine’s advance eventually stopped. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that, faced with military defeat—a defeat that might threaten not only his ambitions in Ukraine but his personal grip on power in Russia—Putin might opt to use the most destructive weapons available to him.

Given both Ukraine’s struggles on the battlefield and the risks inherent even in Ukrainian battlefield successes, the total liberation of all Ukrainian territory from Russian control is probably not a realistic goal. 

An Elusive Ceasefire

One option for ending the war, which I have advocated in the past, is a ceasefire that freezes the battlefront along its current lines. Such a ceasefire would accept the realities on the ground and leave the Russians in control of the Ukrainian territory they have occupied. However, the ceasefire would avoid formal Ukrainian recognition of Russia’s conquests. Such recognition would be interpreted as rewarding Russian aggression and may also be politically impossible for Zelensky.

The stumbling block in pursuing this option, though, is that a ceasefire without official recognition of Russian territorial conquests is apparently not an option Putin is willing to accept. He wants Ukraine to recognize current Russian control of Ukrainian territory and to give up still more territory by effectively conceding all of Ukraine’s Donbas region to Russia. He also wants formal diplomatic guarantees that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO. (Other demands have included de-militarization and some form of regime change for Ukraine, but whether the Russians would insist on these points is unclear.)  

Accepting a diplomatic end to the war on these terms has the grave flaw of unambiguously rewarding Russia’s aggression. At worst, it may even encourage more aggression in the future. Zelensky has stated he will not accept such terms, commenting earlier in August, “We will not leave Donbas. We cannot do this…our territories are illegally occupied…Donbas for the Russians is a springboard for a future new offensive.” 

The alternative to accepting such a gravely unjust end to the war is for the Ukrainians, with western support, to continue fighting. The goal of continuing the fight against further Russian advances would presumably be to inflict such a grave cost on Russian forces that Putin eventually agrees to a ceasefire without any formal concessions to Russia. (At least, that is a plausible goal of continuing the fighting—if Zelensky’s intended goal is to win total victory and drive the Russians completely out of Ukraine, he is not thinking realistically.)

Continuing to fight in the hopes of forcing concessions from Russia carries its own serious costs and risks, though. While the fighting continues, both Ukrainians and Russians will die. Further, continued fighting might backfire on Ukraine: the strain of the war could ultimately force Ukraine to be the one to make concessions or even lead to a wholesale collapse of Ukraine’s defense effort. Continuing the war means Russia might eventually capture all the Donbas anyway. 

The Option of a Ceasefire with No Security Guarantees

Given these alternatives, one option is to split the difference by seeking a diplomatic settlement that does not give up Ukrainian land or formally recognize the Russian occupation of Ukrainian land but gives Russia something similarly valuable. 

Apart from giving up Ukrainian land, the concession to Russia that seems most likely to yield a diplomatic deal is a formal guarantee never to allow Ukraine to join NATO. The prospect of Ukraine joining the US-led military alliance may have been one of the key factors that led to the current war and foreclosing that possibility may help end the war. 

Ukraine, together with the United States and other NATO countries, could propose to Russia an agreement under which the fighting stops and the battlefront is frozen in its current position, without Ukraine giving up additional territory. In return, NATO provides a written promise that Ukraine will never be admitted to the military alliance or given comparable security guarantees. Russia would also receive relief from western economic sanctions, relief that would proceed in phases as the halt in the fighting continues. 

The agreement could also include provisions for the gradual reduction of both Russian and Ukrainian military forces on either side of the battlefront and the Russian-Ukrainian border.

If Russia refuses to accept such an agreement, then Ukraine should not concede any territory but instead should continue to defend its territory from further Russian conquest. The United States and other NATO countries should continue to provide military aid to support Ukraine’s war effort and could also target Russia with additional sanctions, as appropriate. 

However, any western military aid should be tailored to and conditional on Ukraine only defending the territory currently under its control. NATO should not support Ukraine in attempts to re-take the territory under Russian control, as such attempts will likely be futile and counter-productive. Nor should NATO support Ukraine in making attacks on Russian soil, as such attacks would escalate the conflict. 

To be clear, even if the Ukrainians, with NATO support, continue their war effort, Ukraine may still end up losing territory. The Russians may continue their incremental advances or Ukrainian military strength might deteriorate to the point that Ukraine may have to give up territory just to avoid a complete collapse. 

The Ukrainians do not appear to be at that point yet, though. They therefore can continue fighting for at least a little longer in the hopes of forcing the Russians to accept an agreement along the lines I have described above.

The Unacceptable Risk of Security Guarantees

The possible agreement I have proposed does still involve concessions to Russia, but that is unavoidable: given the state of the war, some concessions will be necessary to end the fighting. What matters is making the right concessions: giving up Ukrainian membership in NATO is better than giving up Ukrainian territory simply because NATO membership for Ukraine is not a wise policy to pursue.

People need to understand what NATO membership for Ukraine, or similar security guarantees from NATO countries to Ukraine, means, because this point is crucial: 

To make Ukraine part of the NATO alliance is to make a promise to Ukraine that if Russia continues (or resumes at some point in the future) its war on Ukraine, the United States, Britain, France, and other NATO countries will go to war with Russia. In effect, NATO membership for Ukraine is a promise to respond to further Russian attacks by initiating World War III.

Making such a promise is beyond insane. Promising to initiate a world war would be irrational under any circumstances but making such a promise to a country that has an ongoing, unresolved war with its nuclear-armed neighbor is in its own category of madness. Such a promise is making the fate of every human being on the planet dependent on the future of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. This is not a sound policy and should be categorically rejected.

Looking Ahead and Taking Action     

A diplomatic agreement that combines a ceasefire with a promise not to admit Ukraine into NATO is probably the least bad option for ending the Ukraine-Russia war. Whether the different parties to the conflict will pursue such an agreement is far from clear. 

The recent Alaska and Washington, DC, summits suggest the alarming possibility that the Trump administration may push for Ukraine to give up territory to Russia while also providing US security guarantees to Ukraine—essentially the equivalent of NATO membership. Such a combination of policies could end up being a “worst of both worlds” resolution to the war.

No final resolution has been reached yet, though, so an agreement along the lines I have outlined is still possible. American citizens should contact President Trump (by phone at 202-456-1111 or by email) and contact their elected officials in the House and Senate to advocate a diplomatic resolution to the war that clearly rejects NATO membership for Ukraine or comparable western security guarantees to Ukraine. Citizens in other NATO countries should make similar appeals to their leaders.

Another constructive step people can take is to give money to humanitarian groups that help those affected by the Ukraine war. Groups working in Ukraine include Catholic Relief Services and Mennonite Central Committee. People can also donate to the Halo Trust, which works to clear explosives from Ukrainian land.

The Ukraine war has been a massive human tragedy. We need to end the war in a way that does not lead to a still more catastrophic tragedy in the future.