How President Donald Trump Could End the War in Ukraine Within Twenty-Four Hours

Presenting a detailed plan for how Trump could end the war in Ukraine with a just and lasting peace and a new Russo-American entente that would neutralize Russia's military alliance with the PRC

By David Pyne & Chet Nagle

Former President Donald Trump Posing for a picture with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the 2018 Helsinki Summit

January 25th, 2025 Update—President Trump has suspended all aid to Ukraine for a period of ninety days as part of a review and audit of all US foreign assistance to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to accept a cease-fire. He is also reportedly calling for a reduction of 20,000 US troops in Europe, the exact number I proposed in Article 8 of my peace proposal below. Trump is also demanding a subsidy from America’s European allies to help pay the costs for the remaining 80,000 US military personnel on the continent. I strongly commend him for all of these excellent initiatives.

Thanks to President Donald Trump’s policy of peace through strength, there were no new wars during his administration and Europe was at peace. By contrast, President Joe Biden’s failed strategy of global hegemony, which has been strongly supported by both neoconservative Republicans and neoliberal Democrats, has incited the formation of a hostile axis consisting of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. It has also left the U.S. military dangerously overextended and increasingly incapable of deterring international aggression, leading to the outbreak of major wars in both Europe and the Middle East for the first time in half a century.

For nearly two and a half years, the Biden administration has fought an ill-conceived, proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, which it deliberately provoked by refusing to rule out Ukraine’s NATO membership. Russian President Vladimir Putin has been clamoring for a peace deal since March 2022 when it was ready to sign the Istanbul agreement. Nevertheless, Ukraine and the Biden administration have refused to negotiate with Moscow, and the war has continued with no end in sight. The administration’s Ukraine war strategy, devoid of any achievable objectives, has created alarming risks of escalation. As President Joe Biden admitted two years ago, the war in Ukraine has increased the risk of nuclear war to its highest level since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

The bungled Biden administration response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine has also served to push Russia into a closer alliance with China, emboldening Beijing to consider blockading Taiwan as early as next year to achieve its longtime objective of reunification. During a meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee back in May, Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence, testified that their alliance has gotten to the point where Russia might well aid China in a potential war with the U.S. over Taiwan by engaging in joint cyber and counterspace attacks while massing its troops on NATO’s borders. To prevent this existential threat from fully materializing, the overriding focus of U.S. national security strategy should be to deter such coordinated aggression against the US by formulating a workable plan to divide the burgeoning Sino-Russian alliance.

During a press conference held on July 11th, President Joe Biden was asked if he had a plan to divide the alliance of America’s two nuclear superpower adversaries in his second term. He responded, unconvincingly, by claiming he did but could not reveal it. There have been a number of articles written over the past few years about how the US could do to drive a wedge between Russia and China. However, only one realistic proposal has been published to date by another author, written by former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. He penned an excellent article last year detailing his plan for how President Trump could employ a Ukraine peace deal to split the Sino-Russian military alliance, demonstrating a penchant for strategic thinking unlike any other presidential candidate with the exception of Trump.

Ultimately, the best way to disrupt the Sino-Russian alliance would be to end the war in Ukraine and forge a new Russo-American entente, modeled on the Entente Cordiale of 1904 that ended centuries of military conflict and great power competition between Britain and France. That agreement defined spheres of influence that clearly delineated the lines between both great powers to prevent future conflicts. To do so, the U.S. will first need to terminate the war as swiftly as possible to restore peace and stability to Europe, thus ending the potential threat of Russian nuclear escalation that could cost the lives of hundreds of millions.

President Donald Trump has promised that he would end America’s proxy war in Ukraine within twenty-four hours of taking office, declaring, "we have to stop the killing in Ukraine.” Virtually all Western peace proposals to date have included multiple terms unacceptable to Russia that even some mainstream media outlets now concede is on the verge of winning the war, making them entirely unachievable. Trump was recently briefed by two of his top national security advisors on a plan for the U.S. to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to agree to a permanent cease-fire agreement. Then, negotiations could begin for a peace agreement that could end the war on realistically achievable terms.

I believe the terms proposed above would likely be accepted by the Russians as written or with only minimal revisions. Were he to be re-elected, the proposal outlined below could serve as a blueprint to fulfill his laudable campaign promise to swiftly negotiate a peace deal ending the war that recognizes both Russia’s and Ukraine’s legitimate security interests as part of a summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. US leaders must realize that any peace agreement that does not address the root causes of the Ukraine conflict is ultimately doomed to fail and will merely serve to ensure a resumption of the Russo-Ukrainian war in the near future. What makes this peace plan unique is that it incorporates terms that we believe would be acceptable to all parties of the conflict, which history teach us serves as the key to establishing a just and lasting peace.

An Achievable Ukraine War Peace Plan

1. All hostilities between the parties to the conflict will cease effective immediately. The U.S. guarantees that NATO will never expand eastward. In return for being declared a Major Non-NATO Ally, Ukraine pledges to never join NATO and commits to modify its constitution to end its commitment to become a NATO member as well as to prohibit the presence of foreign troops and bases on its territory. Ukraine may retain all its bilateral security guarantees it has received previously and can join the European Union.

2. Ukraine shall withdraw all its troops from Kursk oblast, recognize Russian control of Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Luhansk along the current lines, as well as Crimea, and renounce any attempt to retake them by military force while leaving the door open to negotiate their final status. In return, Russia pledges to renounce all claims on the Ukrainian controlled portions of these oblasts and withdraw all its troops from Kharkiv and Mykolaiv oblasts while guaranteeing Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

3. A four-kilometer-wide demilitarized zone shall be created along the entire length of Ukraine’s border with the four Russian-controlled oblasts, policed by UN and OSCE peacekeepers from neutral countries, to prevent future conflict. All prisoners of war shall be returned to their home countries and all refugees including forcibly displaced persons shall have the right to return to their homes. There will be no war crimes prosecutions or reparations. Ukrainian reconstruction assistance shall be provided by the European Union as well as from the proceeds of Western tariffs on Russian gas exports.

4. The number of active-duty Ukrainian military servicemembers, including National Guard troops, shall be reduced to half of its pre-war size. The number of Border Guards shall be reduced to its pre-war level. The total number of Ukrainian military personnel, including reservists, shall not exceed one million.

5. Ukraine agrees to Russia’s proposed limits on the quantity and ranges of its offensive "strike systems" systems’ outlined in the April 15, 2022 version of the Istanbul agreement including howitzers, heavy mortars, multiple rocket launch systems, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, combat aircraft, combat drones and warships as well as air defense missile systems. In exchange, Russia agrees to Ukraine’s proposed quantity limits on primarily defensive weapon systems including, tanks, armored vehicles, anti-tank guns, ATGMs, auxiliary aircraft, reconnaissance drones, auxiliary vessels, MANPADS and anti-aircraft artillery. Ukraine further commits to refrain from producing or possessing weapons of mass destruction and to close all foreign biological labs.

6. Full diplomatic relations between Russia and Ukraine will be restored and all bilateral sanctions rescinded. All U.S. economic sanctions against Russia enacted from 2014 onward shall be rescinded and the US will encourage its allies to do the same. All seized public and private Russian financial and economic assets shall be fully restored. In addition, the US commits not to enforce the warrant issued by the International Criminal Court against Russia’s President and to encourage its allies to follow suit.

7. In exchange for Russia removing all its air and land-based nuclear weapons from Kaliningrad, Belarus and all territories previously controlled by Ukraine, the U.S. will redeploy all one hundred and fifty of its B-61 nuclear gravity bombs from Western Europe to its aircraft carriers in the Western Pacific. The U.S. and Russia agree to begin negotiating a New START II Treaty with a limit of 3,500 operational strategic nuclear weapons.

8. In return for a withdrawal of all Russian troops from Belarus, all 20,000 U.S. troops shall be withdrawn from those nations in Europe that were not part of NATO prior to 1999. The U.S. will encourage its western European allies and Canada to withdraw their troops as well. The U.S. and Russia shall refrain from flying heavy bombers or deploying major surface combatants within two-hundred miles of the other’s territory, except for the Bering Strait. In exchange for Russia committing not to interfere in the Western Hemisphere or in NATO member states, the U.S. commits to a policy of non-interference in all former Soviet republics which are not NATO members. The U.S. and Russia solemnly pledge that neither side will go to war against the other in the event they are attacked by a third party.

Why This Would Constitute a “Win-Win” Peace Agreement for the US

Implementing this agreement would prevent so much as one single inch of additional Ukrainian territory falling under Russia control, allow the long and arduous process of Ukrainian reconstruction to begin and permit all 10.8 million Ukrainian refugees to return to their homes. Under its terms, the Ukrainian army would remain the strongest in Europe, not including Turkey and Russia, with over five times more tanks than the UK Royal Army. The administration could credibly point to a peace deal guaranteeing Ukrainian security and independence in which Russia withdrew all its troops from Kursk oblast, renounced all claims on additional Ukrainian territory, allowed for Major Non-NATO Ally status, a NATO equipped million-man Ukrainian army and Russian agreement on some major Ukrainian-requested arms limitations as a major victory for the US. With terms favorable to all parties, it could end up being a “win-win” peace agreement for the US, Russia and Ukraine, maximizing the chances that it would be successful in preventing future conflict.

However, it is important to note that for Russia to accept Ukraine being designated by the US as a Major Non-NATO Ally would require, at minimum, a US pledge to never expand NATO eastward, a permanent ban on Western troops and bases in Ukraine and a full withdrawal of all US troops and a closure of all US military bases in Eastern Europe. Otherwise, Russia will undoubtedly insist on nothing less than Ukraine’s permanent neutrality.

Such a peace agreement with Russia would enable the US to utilize our B-61 nuclear gravity bombs in Western Europe, along with SLCM-N cruise missiles, to restore an extended deterrence capability to our Pacific Treaty allies which is desperately needed to dissuade the People’s Republic of China from committing further aggression. Doing so is essential given it has been over three decades since all US non-strategic nuclear weapons were withdrawn from the Western Pacific leaving the PRC with a virtual monopoly in terms of theater nuclear weapons.

The US does not currently possess sufficient nuclear weapons to counter the Russian and Chinese nuclear threats simultaneously. Accordingly, negotiating a new nuclear arms control treaty with Moscow with significantly higher warhead limits would provide the US with the flexibility to rebuild a large enough strategic nuclear triad to counter balance China’s breathtaking nuclear arms buildup by restoring all of the nuclear warheads in our hedge stockpile to active service.

The most expeditious way for President Trump to obtain a peace deal would be for him to task his vice presidential nominee, Sen. JD Vance, to lead peace negotiations with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin. Vance could meet with Mishustin in Istanbul shortly after Trump’s inauguration to hammer out a final peace agreement. Then, Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin could meet together to sign it after which the US could present it to Ukraine for signature. If Ukraine were to refuse to accept it, Trump could permanently suspend US aid to pressure it to make peace with Russia.

The principal aim of this comprehensive peace agreement with Russia would be to transform the strategic landscape in America’s favor by replacing the existing bipolar international order, in which we face two peer nuclear competitors that are allied against us, with a tripolar international order in which no nuclear superpower is allied with any other, thus making the US far more secure. It would also further Trump’s reported objective of restructuring NATO to reduce its dependence on the US for its security by implementing a proposal written by Sumatra Maitra, who serves as the Director of Research and Outreach at the American Ideas Institute, for a ‘dormant NATO.’ It is worth noting that despite the US withdrawing its non-strategic nuclear weapons from Europe, it would retain its nuclear umbrella over NATO member states.

This peace agreement could also serve as the centerpiece of a strategic realignment by the Trump administration that would significantly enhance the security of the U.S. and its treaty allies in Europe and East Asia. Effecting this peace plan would not only end the war in Ukraine, it would also end America’s New Cold War with Russia by transforming Russia from an adversary into a strategic partner. That transformation would end Russia’s threat to NATO while simultaneously serving to effectively neutralize Moscow’s alliance with Beijing, thereby seriously weakening China. Additionally, without the assurance of Russian military support, China might need to reassess its plan to risk direct conflict with the U.S. over Taiwan.

This agreement would constitute “a grand bargain with Moscow” leaving “Russia satiated and relatively neutral in the European balance” as Maitra has suggested. It would also serve to reorient Russia on the grand chessboard of great power competition between the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China, restoring the rough balance of power that existed before June 2001 when Russia and China formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which Putin has described as “a reborn Warsaw Pact,” and when Russia and China signed their Treaty for Good Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation the following month. Previous to that time, Russia was actively pursuing friendly relations and alliances with both the PRC and the West, but had yet to ally with China militarily. In addition, it would allow the U.S. to refocus on deterring Chinese aggression in the Western Pacific without having to worry about future Russian aggression in Eastern Europe. Such a diplomatic triumph, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General CQ Brown has stated, would provide “more global security” by saving Ukraine, recognizing its hard-won battlefield gains and ensuring the independence of over eighty-seven percent of its prewar-controlled territory.

Once implemented, this peace agreement could secure President Trump’s legacy as one of the greatest transformational peace presidents in American history. He might even be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, not just for ending the war in Ukraine and saving the U.S. and Europe from a full-scale war with Russia that could cost the lives of tens of millions of our citizens, but for creating the necessary conditions to forge an enduring peace, for which future generations would be deeply grateful.

© David T. Pyne and Chad Nagle 2024

David T. Pyne, Esq. is a former US Army Headquarters staff officer who serves as President of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. He previously served as Defense and Foreign Policy Advisor to former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.

Chet Nagle is a graduate of the Naval Academy and Georgetown Law School. As a carrier pilot he flew in the Cuban Missile Crisis. As a civilian he was a Pentagon official, CIA agent, and author. He was awarded the Order of Oman for his service during that nation’s war with communist Yemen.