Time to think endgame in Ukraine
Even the possibility of a Trump victory in the US makes it essential to be prepared
By Mihai Razvan Ungureanu and Dan Perry
The stakes for Ukraine could not be higher as the US presidential election looms on the horizon. While former President Donald Trump may seem disinterested in the intricacies of Ukraine's struggle against Russian aggression, his potential return to the White House would have profound consequences for the war, essentially forcing Ukraine to agree to terms it otherwise would not.
His running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, in recent days outlined a foreign policy vision that all but guarantees a win for Russian President Vladimir Putin, advocating for a peace plan that would freeze the conflict along current battle lines, effectively handing Russia control of its occupied territories while forcing Ukraine into neutrality, meaning a promise to join neither NATO nor the European Union. He also suggested that Europe and not Russia (nor the United States) should bear the costs of a reconstruction estimated at close to a trillion dollars.
While this seems like a capitulation, it aligns with a new Republican isolationism that stems from a combination of war fatigue, economic populism, and skepticism toward international institutions. There's a growing inclination to prioritize domestic issues such as the economy and immigration rather than being the world's policeman—and disdain toward global alliances like NATO, with many seeing these commitments as burdens that benefit foreign nations at the expense of American interests.
So, if Trump and Vance prevail in November, Ukraine will face an existential pivot. Kyiv would be left with little choice but to win decisively by January 2025 or face immense pressure to negotiate terms that could permanently alter its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
That makes it urgent to contemplate and surface what other endgames might look like. Could there be alternatives that do not reward Putin's aggression quite this dramatically? Appeasing a tyrant's aggression is not a stance that has been rewarded with peace throughout history. Is there a way to coax Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky away from his maximalist position that insists on a full Russian pullout from occupied lands and pretends the often-nonsensical internal borders of the Soviet Union were somehow sacrosanct?
Behind closed doors, political and military officials and analysts are already sketching out possible resolutions to the war. Three emerging models offer insights into how the conflict might conclude, with each carrying its own set of risks and opportunities for Ukraine's future.
The Korean Model: An Unresolved Conflict
One potential outcome is reminiscent of the situation on the Korean Peninsula, where a ceasefire in 1953 left North and South Korea locked in a military standoff. The conflict has remained frozen for decades, with both sides continuing to claim the right to reunify under their own terms. In this scenario, Ukraine and Russia could reach a similar standoff, where neither achieves a clear military victory, but a ceasefire holds the fragile peace in place.
This would create a heavily militarized border akin to Korea's Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), where tensions remain high and sporadic clashes are a constant threat. The dream of reunification would persist, but under vastly different visions: Ukraine seeking to regain full sovereignty within its internationally recognized borders, and Russia fomenting separatist movements and openly coveting the destruction of modern Ukraine—but sufficing for now with its gains in Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea.
Finlandization: Sovereignty at a Cost
Another possible resolution draws from Finland's experience in the 1940 Winter War with the Soviet Union. After a brief but brutal conflict, Finland ceded territory to the USSR to maintain its independence—but was forced to be neutral in subsequent global conflicts. The deal allowed Finland to avoid further Soviet intervention while being careful to not provoke its far larger neighbor. Applied to Ukraine, a similar deal might involve Kyiv formally ceding Crimea and parts of its east to Russia in exchange for a commitment to neutrality, thus preventing Ukraine from joining NATO or any other military alliances. Ukraine would retain its independence, free from direct Russian rule, but it would exist under the shadow of Moscow's influence.
This seems to be the Trump vision—and it would be deeply unpopular in Ukraine. After years of fighting to assert its sovereignty and align with the West, accepting Russian territorial gains would be a bitter pill for the Ukrainian government and its people. It would offer a path to peace—but one that leaves Ukraine vulnerable and forced into a neutral stance that may stymie its long-term aspirations.
The Rasmussen Plan: Ukrainian Victory
The Seven-Point Plan for Ukraine, presented by former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit in May 2023, outlines a strategy for securing Ukraine's victory and long-term stability. The plan, developed by Rasmussen's Alliance for Democracies, calls for sustained military support to Ukraine until it can join NATO, a complete withdrawal of Russian forces, and the restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity, including Crimea. It also emphasizes holding Russia accountable for war crimes, rebuilding Ukraine with Western assistance, and integrating Ukraine into the EU and NATO. He rejects any form of compromise with Russia, believing that only a decisive victory will bring lasting peace. By integrating Ukraine into Euro-Atlantic structures, the plan aims to permanently shift the balance of power in Europe, ensuring Ukraine's sovereignty and stability.
However, this vision requires long-term Western support—military, financial, and political—at a time when war fatigue is growing. While ambitious, the plan's success hinges on sustained international commitment and Ukraine's ability to maintain military momentum against Russia's larger forces. It's safe to say that Trump will not go along with this—and even Harris may eventually waver.
The Rasmussen plan does not set a timeframe, so it is possible to presume that even he views it as a utopian vision for the future. He leaves blank the interim phase, and we'd like to propose one.
A Divided Ukraine: Cold War Germany Redux
This scenario would be a postwar scenario akin to Cold War Germany, where Ukraine is split into two separate entities, each aligned with opposing global powers. Western Ukraine would integrate with NATO and the European Union, which would be massive boon for Zelensky—but part of eastern Ukraine, including Crimea and much of Donetsk and Luhansk, would remain under Russian control. This would formalize the current de facto division, creating a new geopolitical reality on Europe's eastern flank.
The demarcation line would not include all the areas Russia has annexed, since the current front runs deeper into Eastern Ukraine. Thus each side will be able to declare a form of victory, and the whole setup would have an air of the interim about it.
Such a division would, of course, be fraught with peril (see TV debate from last year). Ukraine's territorial integrity would be irreparably compromised, and the split could fuel further tensions between NATO and Russia. But for many, it might seem like a pragmatic way to prevent an all-out war while acknowledging the geopolitical realities of the region. Critically, there would be the possibility of a reunification, as occurred in Germany—essentially realizing Rasmussen's goals at some point in the future.
Unlike the Cold War partition of Germany, however, this split would be more complex, given the absence of a clear division between US and Russian spheres of influence that would prevent the Americans from being guarantors of the peace.
One possible solution for providing peacekeeping forces and other roles might be counterintuitive: bringing in China. For China, this could be an opportunity to solidify its role as a global power broker, stepping beyond its traditional economic influence to act as a guarantor of peace. It may make China more of a global team player. There is some elegance there.
If Vice President Kamala Harris secures the presidency, Zelensky will gain more time— perhaps six months to a year—in which she is expected to maintain President Joe Biden's current approach: sustained military and economic aid, continued diplomatic support, and efforts to keep NATO unified against Russia. While this would provide Ukraine with the resources it needs to continue fighting, Harris would still face growing war fatigue from both European allies and US voters, many of whom are increasingly concerned about the financial cost of supporting Ukraine in an open-ended conflict.
The longer the war drags on, the more Russia benefits from its reserves of manpower and economic resilience. Putin can afford to wait, while Ukraine cannot. So, the stark reality is that, regardless of who wins the 2024 US election, Ukraine's window to reclaim its lost territories is shrinking.
Kyiv's choices are increasingly constrained by forces beyond its control. It may be time for Zelensky to borrow something else from Germany: the word realpolitik.
Mihai Razvan Ungureanu is the former prime minister and foreign minister of Romania, headed the country's external intelligence service, and is a professor of history at the University of Bucharest.
Thank you for such an insightful article - you are a valuable resource of global experience, and your contribution of a point of view (that is easy to understand the risks and benefits) would encourage policymakers to find a common ground strategy from the three options you described.
It’s 6:15am (PST) here on the west coast of the US Pacific Northwest- but I wanted to comment on your professional opinion and express my gratitude for this ‘Time to Think Endgame in Ukraine.’