President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly exploring a proposal to establish an 800-mile buffer zone between Russian and Ukrainian forces, with European and British troops enforcing the divide. This proposal, one of several options under consideration, aims to freeze the ongoing conflict rather than seek a decisive military outcome.
Details of the plan emerged as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky issued a warning that any peace effort perceived as appeasing Russia would be tantamount to “suicide” for Europe. Trump, who previously indicated intentions to initiate peace negotiations before his January inauguration, has framed his approach as a practical, rapid means to de-escalate the situation.
The proposal, outlined by Trump’s team, would enforce a demilitarised zone along the current frontline. Under the plan, Ukraine would halt its NATO membership aspirations for two decades. In return, the United States would bolster Ukraine’s defences with substantial military support, aiming to deter Russia from reigniting the conflict. However, the US would not deploy troops to patrol the buffer zone, nor would it fund the mission.
A Trump team representative reportedly told The Wall Street Journal:
“We can do training and other support, but the barrel of the gun is going to be European. We are not sending American men and women to uphold peace in Ukraine. And we are not paying for it. Get the Poles, Germans, British and French to do it.”
The plan emerged as Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulated Trump on his election win, expressing a willingness to engage in discussions to resolve the Ukraine conflict. Speaking at the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, Putin praised Trump’s “courageous” stance, particularly during an assassination attempt at a rally in Pennsylvania earlier in the year. Putin voiced hopes for the restoration of US-Russia relations, but emphasised that the impetus lay with Washington.
Divisive Reactions and European Concerns
The proposed buffer zone has sparked mixed reactions across Europe. Former UK Chancellor George Osborne commented that it was unlikely the UK could continue supporting Ukraine unilaterally in the absence of US backing. “Is it realistic to expect a complete victory for Ukraine, the complete ejection of Russia from Ukrainian territory?” Osborne questioned, adding, “it’s not our children who are dying.” He suggested Europe might struggle to maintain support without American financial and logistical aid, even as the Biden administration races to allocate the $61 billion recently authorised by Congress before Biden’s term ends.
France’s President Emmanuel Macron, meanwhile, asserted the need for Europe to control its destiny. Speaking at a European summit, Macron urged Europe to bolster defence spending, warning against allowing external powers to dictate the continent’s future. Similarly, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called for continental unity akin to the collective response during the COVID-19 pandemic, though she refrained from commenting directly on Trump’s proposal.
Ukraine’s Position: Vigilance and Wary Cooperation
Zelensky has signalled Ukraine’s openness to peace negotiations but remains cautious. Addressing the European Union summit in Budapest, Zelensky maintained that any peace solution born from a show of weakness would be illusory.
“There should be no illusions that a just peace can be bought by showing weakness,” he warned. “Peace is a reward only for the strong.”
Since the July European Political Community summit in the UK, discussions on possible compromises with Russia have persisted. Zelensky reiterated Ukraine’s commitment to resisting any settlement that could be construed as a capitulation to Russian advances, which he argued would compromise Europe’s security as a whole.
Ukraine has previously ruled out trading land for peace and has underscored that NATO membership remains essential to prevent further Russian aggression. However, some analysts, including Ukrainian political expert Volodymyr Fesenko, suggest Ukraine may consider shelving NATO ambitions in exchange for robust security guarantees, potentially akin to US alliances with South Korea and Israel. This would enable Ukraine to seek de facto assurances of protection without formal NATO membership.
Prospects of Territorial Adjustments and Russia’s Demands
The Kremlin has not directly addressed Trump’s peace plan, though it has made clear that Russia would demand more than a freezing of the current front line. Dmitri Trenin, a well-connected Russian political commentator, has posited that Moscow would likely require stipulations on Ukraine’s military potential and its geopolitical alignment. In a recent article in Kommersant, Trenin argued that any lasting peace would necessitate acknowledgement of “new territorial realities” alongside limitations on Ukraine’s future alliances.
JD Vance, Trump’s vice president-elect, has similarly suggested that a resolution would entail recognising Russian control over its existing territorial gains. Under his proposal, the remaining Ukrainian territory would remain independent but fortified to prevent future Russian advances. Vance has also advocated for a neutral Ukraine, aligned neither with NATO nor other Western institutions, suggesting this arrangement could offer the framework for lasting peace.
Domestic Considerations and Trump’s Cabinet Influence
The specifics of Trump’s peace plan may ultimately hinge on his cabinet selections. Mike Pompeo, the former Secretary of State who is expected to assume leadership at the Pentagon, has criticised the Biden administration’s handling of the conflict, arguing that US aid was delivered too slowly. He is seen as likely to oppose any resolution that could be interpreted as yielding to Russia’s terms. Richard Grenell, Trump’s former ambassador to Berlin, has previously endorsed the concept of “autonomous zones” within Ukraine, a proposal reminiscent of the failed Minsk agreements, which saw Russia attempting to leverage controlled regions in Donbas to influence Ukraine’s foreign policy.
As Ukraine contemplates the possibility of resuming talks under pressure from a potential shift in US policy, the broader geopolitical dynamics remain delicate. Putin, meanwhile, has condemned the West’s efforts to “inflict a strategic defeat on Russia” in Ukraine, arguing that such goals reflect the adventurism of Western policymakers. Addressing the Valdai Club, he warned that Western nations were pushing towards “a dangerous line,” implying Russia’s resolve to resist.
