Trump’s Supposed Plan for Ending the Russia-Ukraine War

A Strategic Realignment or an Imposed Settlement?

With President Donald Trump back in office, his administration has begun implementing a radically different approach to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. A recent leak from Trump’s camp, particularly through comments by U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, suggests that his administration is prioritizing a swift end to the conflict, but on terms largely dictated by the United States and its allies. The strategy, as outlined by Waltz, appears to rely on shifting the burden of Ukraine’s security onto Europe, imposing harsher economic pressure on Russia, and tying future U.S. support for Ukraine to financial and resource concessions.

If this plan is indeed reflective of Trump’s real intentions, it marks a significant departure from the previous Biden administration’s approach and raises serious questions about its feasibility, geopolitical implications, and potential consequences for both Ukraine and the broader global order.

The Core of Trump’s Proposed Strategy

Trump has long boasted that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war “in 24 hours.” While such a claim is highly unrealistic, the framework suggested by Waltz provides insight into how Trump might attempt to bring the war to a close. The key elements of this approach appear to be:

1. Forcing Europe to Take Over Ukraine’s Defense

   Trump’s team appears to be signaling that under his leadership, the U.S. would scale back direct military and financial support for Ukraine, shifting the responsibility to European nations. Waltz explicitly stated, “The Europeans have to be responsible for the conflict going forward. President Trump will end it. And then, in terms of security guarantees, that will be entirely up to the Europeans.”

   This reflects Trump’s broader skepticism toward NATO and his long-standing complaint that European allies have not paid their “fair share” in global security arrangements. If implemented, this policy would likely force Europe into a more active role in arming and funding Ukraine, which could lead to serious disagreements within the EU and NATO about the level of continued support for Kyiv.

2. Pressuring Russia with Economic Warfare

   According to Waltz, Trump believes that Russia’s economy is already under strain and that further economic measures could bring Moscow to the negotiating table. The plan involves imposing even tougher tariffs, duties, and sanctions against Russia to exacerbate its financial struggles.

   This approach suggests an economic war of attrition rather than a military one. However, its effectiveness remains uncertain. Russia has already shown resilience in circumventing Western sanctions by strengthening trade ties with China, India, and other non-Western economies. Trump’s success in tightening economic pressure would likely depend on his ability to rally these key global players into isolating Russia—an effort that would require significant diplomatic maneuvering.

3. Leveraging Ukraine’s Natural Resources to Repay U.S. Aid

   One of the most controversial aspects of Waltz’s comments was the suggestion that Ukraine should compensate the U.S. for the aid it has received. He specifically mentioned that this could be achieved through a partnership involving Ukraine’s rare earth elements, natural resources, oil, and gas.

   This signals a transactional approach to U.S. foreign aid, essentially turning military and financial assistance into an investment with expected returns. For Ukraine, this could mean surrendering economic sovereignty over key industries in exchange for continued American support. Such an arrangement would undoubtedly be contentious within Ukraine and could lead to domestic political instability if seen as compromising national interests.

4. Engaging Global Powers in a Diplomatic Push

   Waltz also hinted that Trump’s team is seeking to involve China, India, and Middle Eastern nations in brokering a settlement. He claimed that discussions have already been held with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and leaders across the Middle East, all of whom are allegedly “ready to help President Trump end this war.”

   While this suggests an ambitious diplomatic outreach, the reality is far more complex. China and India have maintained neutral or even slightly pro-Russian stances throughout the war. Their willingness to pressure Moscow into an unfavorable settlement remains questionable, particularly given their own strategic interests in maintaining strong ties with Russia.

Russia’s Likely Response

Moscow’s initial reaction to these reported U.S. plans has been dismissive. Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin stated that Russia perceives Western discussions about negotiations as mere positioning rather than genuine attempts to resolve the conflict.

Galuzin made it clear that any real negotiations must acknowledge “new realities”—a reference to Russia’s territorial gains in Ukraine. He also emphasized that Russia would not accept a peace deal dictated by Washington or one that does not align with its strategic interests.

If Trump were to move forward with an economic pressure campaign, Russia would likely intensify its pivot toward non-Western economies, strengthening trade and energy partnerships with China, Iran, and other Global South nations resistant to U.S. influence. Rather than forcing Russia into submission, Trump’s approach could deepen global economic fragmentation and push Moscow further into alternative financial and trade systems outside Western control.

Implications for Global Stability

If implemented, Trump’s proposed approach would have far-reaching consequences:

1. For Ukraine: Ukraine could find itself in a precarious position, caught between diminished U.S. military aid, increased economic demands from Washington, and uncertain European support. This could pressure Kyiv into making territorial or economic concessions that it might otherwise resist.

2. For Europe: European nations would be forced to take on a much larger role in funding and arming Ukraine. Given internal political divisions—especially in countries like Germany, Hungary, and France—this could lead to fractures within NATO and the EU over the level of commitment to Ukraine’s defense.

3. For Russia: If Trump successfully rallies a global economic blockade against Russia, it could force Moscow into making concessions. However, given Russia’s economic adaptability and alternative trade routes, this strategy could backfire and solidify Russia’s partnerships with China, India, and other non-Western powers.

4. For Global Alliances: If Trump moves away from full-fledged U.S. support for Ukraine, it could weaken NATO cohesion and embolden adversaries who see the U.S. as an unreliable security partner. This could also shift global perceptions of American leadership and its willingness to defend allies in other regions, including Taiwan.

Conclusion: A Bold but Risky Strategy

Trump’s reported plan for the Russia-Ukraine war represents a high-stakes gamble. It reflects his transactional approach to foreign policy—pushing allies to shoulder more of the burden while using economic pressure to coerce adversaries. While it may have the potential to bring about negotiations, it also risks alienating Ukraine, dividing NATO, and pushing Russia further into China’s economic embrace.

As with all major geopolitical shifts, the success or failure of such a plan would depend on execution. If Trump can truly align European, Asian, and Middle Eastern powers in pressuring Russia, it could lead to an endgame in Ukraine. But if miscalculated, it could weaken Western unity, embolden Moscow, and create new fractures in the global order. The world will be watching closely.