J.D. Vance and Trump’s Vision for Ending the Russia-Ukraine War: A Misguided Approach?

J.D. Vance, the Republican candidate for U.S. Vice President, recently provided insight into Donald Trump’s plan for ending the war between Russia and Ukraine. While Trump has repeatedly claimed he could end the war within 24 hours, he has never elaborated on the specifics. Vance, however, offered a more detailed perspective, which reveals certain misconceptions and a potential misunderstanding of the ongoing conflict.

Unlike Trump, who has focused on his ability to bring Putin and Zelensky to the negotiating table without offering any real strategy, Vance provided a more concrete approach. Yet, this new clarity exposes significant gaps in the understanding of the dynamics between Russia, Ukraine, and the West. Vance’s statements show that Trump’s team may be operating under illusions that will likely shatter when confronted with the reality on the ground.

🤔 A freeze on the current front line and Ukraine's refusal to join NATO may be proposed by Trump if he is elected president, according to J.D. Vance. pic.twitter.com/FPM3aI6fpJ
— MAKS 24 🇺🇦👀 (@Maks_NAFO_FELLA) September 12, 2024

A Misguided Assumption About Russia

Vance’s approach is rooted in the belief that all parties involved—Russia, Ukraine, Europe, and the United States—want the war to end. This is only partially true. He is correct in stating that Western nations, grappling with economic challenges and a sense of insecurity, would like to see the conflict end. This war, the largest in Europe since World War II, has been a significant strain on the global economy, particularly for Western countries. Vance also rightly acknowledges that Ukraine desires an end to the war, as the country faces daily bombardment and occupation by its aggressive neighbour.

However, where Vance’s logic falters is in his assumption that Russia is also interested in ending the war. This assertion is difficult to comprehend. Over the past two and a half years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown no desire to halt the conflict. On the contrary, Putin appears to benefit from the war, using it as a tool to destabilise Ukraine, sow chaos in the West, and further entrench his authoritarian regime. The conflict allows Putin to weaken Ukraine and maintain control over his own domestic power, all without facing significant threats to his leadership. Therefore, to assume that Russia is eager for peace is the first major error in Vance and Trump’s strategy.

A Questionable Ceasefire Proposal

Vance proposes that the United States, under Trump’s leadership, could broker a ceasefire along the current lines of contact between Russian and Ukrainian forces. This suggestion implies freezing the conflict as it stands, locking in the territorial gains Russia has made during its invasion. While the U.S. might be able to pressure Ukraine into accepting such terms, the real challenge lies in persuading Putin to agree to a ceasefire.

If Russian forces were to make further advances on Ukrainian soil, what incentive would Putin have to stop? Furthermore, one of Putin’s key conditions for peace talks is that Ukraine withdraw its forces from parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia—territories still controlled by the Ukrainian government. This demand is far from a ceasefire along current battle lines, making Vance’s proposal seem unrealistic at best.

Concessions on NATO Membership

One of the more controversial elements of Vance’s plan is his suggestion that the U.S. should guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO. This would be a concession to Russia, fulfilling a demand that Putin made before launching the invasion in 2022. Such a move would not only be a blow to Ukraine, effectively stripping it of the right to choose its alliances, but also a humiliation for the United States. Vance’s proposal implies that it would be another country—Russia—that would dictate which nations can join NATO.

Vance’s endorsement of this condition aligns with Putin’s narrative that Ukraine’s desire to join NATO was the primary reason for the war. However, it is worth remembering that Russia’s annexation of Crimea occurred when Ukraine was officially a non-aligned state, not seeking NATO membership. This fact casts doubt on Vance’s explanation and highlights the flawed reasoning behind Trump’s plan.

An Inconsistent Approach to Ukraine’s Defence

While Vance suggests that Ukraine should remain outside NATO, he simultaneously argues that the U.S. should ensure Ukraine is armed to prevent future Russian aggression. This creates a puzzling contradiction. Vance’s proposal envisions a heavily armed Ukraine, supported by the U.S. and other Western nations, but without the protection of NATO membership.

If Russia views NATO as a threat, why would it tolerate a non-NATO Ukraine that is heavily armed and capable of challenging Russia militarily? This inconsistency in Vance’s thinking raises questions about how Trump’s team envisions the future of the region and whether they fully grasp Russia’s strategic objectives.

A Chinese Parallel

One striking aspect of Vance’s plan is its similarity to the proposals made by Chinese President Xi Jinping. Both call for a ceasefire along the current battle lines, no serious security guarantees for Ukraine, and Ukraine’s neutral status. This resemblance raises a critical question: Why is a team that views China as the primary threat to the U.S. so closely aligned with China’s approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

This alignment with the Chinese agenda is particularly curious given that Trump and his supporters have consistently framed China as a geopolitical rival. Yet, Vance’s plan seems to follow the same script laid out by Beijing, which seeks to prioritise Russia’s security concerns while offering little to Ukraine.

A Path to Nowhere?

Ultimately, Vance’s vision for ending the Russia-Ukraine war lacks the depth and understanding needed to address the complexities of the conflict. His assumption that Russia wants peace, despite Putin’s actions, is flawed. The idea of a ceasefire along the current lines of contact is unlikely to be accepted by either side, and the suggestion that Ukraine should be armed but remain outside NATO creates an unsustainable contradiction.

Moreover, the similarity between Vance’s proposals and China’s peace plan further undermines the credibility of Trump’s foreign policy approach. Should Trump return to the White House, his administration’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine war could lead to further instability, emboldening Russia and weakening Ukraine’s position on the global stage.

In the end, Vance’s proposal is not a realistic plan for ending the war. Instead, it reflects a deep misunderstanding of the geopolitical realities at play. Whether this vision will resonate with the American electorate remains to be seen, but the risks of such an approach could have far-reaching consequences for the future of U.S. foreign policy and global stability.