US-Russia Peace Talks to End the War in Ukraine Will Begin Tomorrow

Including an updated version of my peace proposal to end the war outlining what I believe to the best possible terms for Ukraine that Russia might accept

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on his official plane preparing to fly to Saudi Arabia for high-level talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Just days after President Trump announced that he held a productive ninety minute phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and was planning his first summit with Putin in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to discuss a peace framework to end the war in Ukraine. Politico reported over the weekend that a US delegation including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff, who was able to secure a cease-fire agreement pausing the Gaza war after only three and a half hours meeting with the Israelis, will meet with a Russian delegation in Saudi Arabia. Hopefully, he will ask Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to participate in the next round of peace talks now that she has been confirmed, given she has a much better understanding of Russia and how to end the war in Ukraine than anyone else on the US negotiation team. Russian leaders have suggested that agreeing on a peace framework will be necessary before a cease-fire can be implemented as the prelude to the signing of a final peace agreement ending the war within the next few months.

Secretary Rubio landed in Saudi Arabia earlier this morning to begin peace talks with Russia tomorrow. Reuters has confirmed that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is flying to Saudi Arabia to lead the Russian delegation. These peace talks are being convened in furtherance of a well-thought-out Trump administration strategy to meet President Donald Trump’s goal to end the war within the next few months. This choice of venue is clearly an attempt by Trump to further enhance his relationship with Saudi leaders whom he hopes will sign on to an Abraham Accords-style peace deal with Israel in the very near future. Secretary Rubio stated on Face the Nation on Sunday that the primary purpose of the talks was to restore trust and confidence between the US and Russia. "Everyone should be celebrating the fact that we have an American president that is seeking to promote peace in the world, not start wars, but end them, in a way that's enduring," Rubio said. "That's something we should be happy about.” President Trump’s call to Russian President Vladmir Putin on Wednesday, Rubio’s call to Lavrov on Saturday and the meeting scheduled for tomorrow are all succeeding in rebuilding trust between the two sides and normalizing US relations with Moscow which are key to achieving a mutually acceptable peace agreement ending the war in Ukraine. Russian government officials have responded by praising the approach of the Trump administration as “very reasonable.”

According to the Russian Foreign Ministry press release, Rubio and Lavrov “agreed to maintain an open channel of communication to address long-standing issues in Russian-American relations. Their goal is to remove unilateral barriers inherited from the previous U.S. administration that have hindered mutually beneficial trade, economic and investment cooperation. Both sides expressed a shared commitment to engaging on key international issues, including the situation in Ukraine, developments in Palestine and the broader Middle East, as well as other regional matters.” President Trump stated earlier today that Russia doesn’t want to conquer all of Ukraine and that Putin “wants to stop the fighting” adding “they want to end it fast.” Fox News reported he said he also expects to hold a summit with Putin “very soon.” In June 2024, the New York Times reported that during March-April 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin was not just sincere about trying to negotiate an end to the war but that according to one US diplomat, “he was salivating for peace,” a far cry from the Biden administration’s misleading characterization of the Russian President as showing no indication he wanted peace.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Lavrov and Yuri Ushakov, a foreign policy advisor to President Vladimir Putin, would fly to the Saudi capital Riyadh today to join Rubio. "They are expected to hold a meeting with their American counterparts on Tuesday, which will focus primarily on restoring the entire complex of Russian-American relations," Peskov said. "It will also be devoted to the preparation of possible negotiations on the Ukrainian settlement and the organization of a meeting between the two presidents." Ushakov was a top aide to Lavrov during the Normandy Talks with France, Germany and Ukraine that produced the Minsk Agreements in 2014 and 2015 which were highly favorable to Ukraine and attempted to negotiate a diplomatic solution to avert the outbreak of the war in Ukraine by addressing Russian concerns of the Ukrainian treatment of ethnic Russians in the contested Donbass region.

Vice President JD Vance meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the Munich Security Conference. Vance notably refused to meet with him at last year’s conference because he wanted to avoid appearing to support Zelensky given his staunch opposition to continued US involvement in Biden’s proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

Fox News is reporting Ukraine was not notified in advance of the peace negotiations and that Trump’s plan is to hold bilateral negotiations with the Russians, perhaps with Ukrainian representatives on the sidelines. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has confirmed that Ukraine was not invited to participate in these peace talks. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky gave a defiant interview on “Meet the Press” on NBC News yesterday in which he stated that Ukraine would only accept a peace deal negotiated between the US and Russia in which Ukraine was accepted into NATO, Russia returned all Ukrainians internationally recognized territory including Crimea and Putin was imprisoned as a war criminal demonstrating his total opposition to Trump’s initiative to negotiate peace with Russia. Only a near term Trump-imposed cease fire can save Ukraine now but Zelensky remains unwilling to lift his decree banning peace negotiations with Russia putting his political self-interests above those of his own country. Accordingly, the only way to achieve peace is for Trump to bring heavy pressure on Zelensky to agree to it. As Senator Mike Lee has stated, President Trump should respond to Zelensky’s adamant refusal to accept a peace deal with Russia by cutting off all US aid to Ukraine including Starlink access until Ukraine accepts a cease-fire.

The reason that Zelensky is so adamantly opposed to Trump’s attempt to negotiate a peace deal with Russia that would end Ukraine’s unwinnable war against Russia and ensure the survival is that such a peace would lead to his own downfall from power as it would force him to lift martial law and reschedule the democratic presidential election he cancelled last year which polls show he would be sure to lose against a more popular candidate such as General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the former Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Much like other corrupt autocratic leaders throughout history, Zelensky would rather see a Ukrainian military collapse with Russian troops overrunning half of Ukraine than give up power voluntarily. This, of course, is the reason why even LTG Keith Kellogg, a staunch Ukraine supporter, who was appointed to serve as Special US Envoy to Russia-Ukraine is calling for Kyiv to hold democratic elections later this summer within four months of a cease-fire, marking the end of martial law. Since the war began, Zelensky has acted not like a democratic leader but more like a ruthless despot, banning eleven opposition parties, seizing control of three opposition TV networks, arresting Ukrainian Orthodox Church leaders, jailing and even assassinating Ukrainian opposition leaders using CIA trained and funded Ukrainian SBU death squads operating behind the lines in the occupied territories. Accordingly, I strongly support the Trump administration’s drive to restore democracy to Ukraine as one of the key elements of any peace agreement.

As Trump stated, his phone call with Putin last week marks the formal beginning of peace negotiations between the US and Russia. His decision to appoint Secretary of State Marco Rubio to lead negotiations with Russia rather than his Special Envoy to Russia and Ukraine LTG Keith Kellogg, who Russia likely objected to given his past support for Ukraine, combined with his invitation for Putin to visit the US and acceptance of Putin’s invitation to visit Moscow show that Trump is assigning the highest possible priority both to repairing all the damage Biden did to US-Russia relations. The fact that these talks are being conducted at the highest possible diplomatic level, short of being led by Vice President JD Vance and Russian Prime Minister Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, strongly suggest that Trump is determined to make as much progress as quickly as possible to ensure the reported final peace agreement date of May 9^th is realized and that failure is not an option for him. This represents a stark contrast to the Biden administration which refused to talk to Russia and wanted to fight the war in perpetuity to the last Ukrainian, ignoring potential risks of nuclear escalation and the massive disruption to European peace and stability. By way of comparison, the US delegation that met with the Russians in January 2022 to find a way to avert the outbreak of the war in Ukraine was conducted at the sub-Cabinet level and offered no significant concessions to the Russians to address their legitimate security concerns underscoring the Biden administration’s lack of interest in averting an unnecessary European war.

Trump's statement notifying Zelensky of his intention to engage in bilateral negotiations with Russia without Ukraine show he understands that Zelensky has been the chief obstacle to peace and that there is no value to the US in having Ukraine at the negotiating table and that therefore Ukraine will have to accept whatever terms, the US is able to negotiate on Ukraine's behalf. With Biden out of office, Ukraine can no longer count on US support in its continuing war against the Russian Federation. The Trump administration has also expressed no desire to give its NATO allies a seat at the table rightly viewing them as potential saboteurs in his ongoing attempt to achieve a meaningful peace agreement that would not merely freeze the Ukraine conflict but address a wide range of Russian grievances and thereby end our New Cold War with Russia, making the US and Europe far more secure in the process.

I have been saying for the past two and a half years that any peace negotiations should be conducted between the US and Russia exclusively as the US can be trusted to negotiate the best terms realistically possible for its client state without the need for Ukraine to be at the negotiating table so I am extremely pleased to see that the Trump administration has decided upon this approach. Then, the final agreement can be presented to Ukraine for signature and if Zelensky refuses to sign it the US can either express support for his ouster or else cut off all US aid to Ukraine including its Starlink access, without which Ukraine would be unable to use its drones which have proven essential to limit the advance of the Russian military, to force him to sign it. There is a precedent for this as last year the Pentagon directed Space-X to shut off the Russian military’s access to Starlink satellites in Ukraine and it complied.

On Thursday, during an interview on “Judging Freedom” hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano, Russia analyst Gilbert Doctorow reported that his sources have stated that much of the substance of the Trump-Putin call was not made public. He said that his Russian sources have informed him that much of the discussion focused on Putin’s stated desire to address the causes of the Ukrainian conflict and to incorporate Russia into the security architecture of Europe with some kind of mutual security agreement between the US and Russia. He concluded one of the reasons why the US and Russia wanted to exclude Ukraine from peace talks is because they want to address these concerns which are matters for discussion only between the two nuclear superpowers.

President Trump Meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin back in 2019. Trump ran for President on a platform of peace with Russia in both the 2016 and 2024 presidential elections and he is taking concrete steps to show he intends to make good on his campaign pledge.

President Trump wrote in his social media post that the U.S. negotiating team would include Secretary of State Marco Rubio; John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director; his national security adviser, Michael Waltz, and his Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff who was in Moscow this past week and retrieved the American schoolteacher Marc Fogel, who was imprisoned for more than three years in Russia. Trump did not mention LTG Keith Kellogg (USA Ret.), who he has designated as his Special Envoy for Russia and Ukraine. Mr. Kellogg has generally taken a more aggressive posture toward Russia than some of Mr. Trump’s informal advisers, and he recently suggested that Mr. Trump could increase sanctions against Russia to force them toward a peace deal. The absence of Keith Kellogg from Trump’s announced US negotiation team is notable. Doctorow said the Russians told administration officials they would not negotiate with Kellogg because his daughter works for an NGO connected to the war in Ukraine, so Trump decided to replace him with his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who unlike Kellogg has extensive experience in international negotiations, principally at the corporate level. Kellogg appears to be continuing as Special Envoy to Ukraine, but not Russia. He had declared just yesterday that there were no immediate plans to begin peace talks and suggested they might occur in six weeks suggesting Trump’s designated Special Envoy for Russia and Ukraine may be being deliberately left out of the loop by senior Trump officials.

Zelensky previously demanded NATO membership for Ukraine and 200,000 NATO peacekeepers including tens of thousands of NATO troops to be deployed to the frontlines as a security guarantee that Russia would never attack Ukraine again. NATO military leaders have expressed their belief that at least 120,000 international peacekeeping troops would be required to fulfill a stabilization mission along a new DMZ separating Russian and Ukrainian controlled territory. A recent study showed European NATO, which consists of 30 countries, can only deploy 25,000 peacekeepers to Ukraine at any given time so non-European countries would have to contribute tens of thousands more peacekeepers to meet Ukraine’s stated requirements. Meanwhile, Russia has warned that if NATO deploys tens of thousands of peacekeepers to Ukraine, it would lead to ‘uncontrollable escalation’ and World War Three ensuing that it will be a non-starter in upcoming peace talks with the US.

During his interview, Doctorow said it was agreed that any peacekeepers would hail from non-European countries like China. I have recommended India lead a force of international peacekeepers to patrol a new DMZ between Ukraine and the four Russian annexed oblasts. Russia has publicly stated that it will not accept any foreign troops in Ukraine but it has very good relations with both China and India so it would be unlikely to object to troops from either country knowing they would not be used against it. However, the truth is no international peacekeepers will be required to keep the peace as far as Russia is concerned so long as the terms of a final peace agreement are minimally acceptable to Russia as I believe my proposed terms above would be. If it were not, then the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine would serve as a powerful incentive to provoke Russia to resume the war to attack and destroy them given that it was the increasing NATO military presence in Ukraine, consisting of over a thousand troops, that caused Russia to invade it in the first place. It would be far more likely that Zelensky, not Putin, would attempt to violate the terms of a peace agreement to attempt to embroil NATO in a direct war against Russia as has been his objective for the past three years knowing that doing so would be his only hope to regain control of Ukraine’s lost territories. Accordingly, it might actually be more in Russia’s interests to deploy genuinely neutral non-European peacekeepers to patrol the DMZ than Ukraine’s.

The timeline in Trump’s purported 100-day peace plan that was reported by an opposition Ukrainian media outlet and covered by Newsweek is as follows:

The first step of the purported peace plan would be a phone call between Trump and Putin and between Trump and Zelensky at the end of January or early February. This would be followed by meetings between Trump, Zelensky and Putin either all together or separately in late February or early March to discuss the main parameters of a peace plan. On April 20^th, a cease-fire would be announced along the entire front followed by a withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from the Kursk region. At the end of April, an international peace conference would be convened where the US and China would join with countries in Europe and the Global South powers to mediate a formal peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia to end the war while there would be an exchange of all prisoners of war held by Russia and Ukraine. By May 9^th, the international peace conference would announce a formal end to the war while Ukraine will end martial law and military mobilization. Ukraine would hold a presidential election at the end of August.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth gave an outstanding speech at the Munich Security Conference saying it is unrealistic to believe Russia will agree to Ukraine becoming a NATO member or that Ukraine will get its lost territories back while stating that the US would never send troops to Ukraine and that the EU will be responsible for any security guarantees and future aid for Kyiv.

The statement by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth that he made on Wednesday that Ukraine will never join NATO, no US peacekeepers will be deployed to Ukraine and that its unrealistic for Ukraine to insist on the restoration of its lost territory which it has been unable to retake following three years of war, as well as President Trump calling both President Putin and President Zelensky early this month appear to confirm my assessment that the timetable in the leaked 100-day Trump Ukraine war peace plan, including the objective of producing a final peace agreement by Russia’s Victory Day on May 9^th, is likely genuine. The decision to begin peace negotiations in late February serve as further confirmation that the timetable in the leaked peace plan is likely accurate. If so, we should expect Trump to meet in person with Russian President Putin in Saudi Arabia by early next month to discuss the main parameters of a peace deal.

The main question at hand is what are the realistic parameters of such a peace plan?

A Realistic Peace Framework for Ending the War in Ukraine

This agreement could be divided into a bilateral peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine and a legally binding strategic framework agreement or accord between the US and Russia, outlining all the commitments specifically relating to the US and Russia designed to address and resolve all of the underlying reasons for the conflict to ensure a just and lasting peace. Due to the fact that the strategic framework agreement would not constitute a formal treaty, the Trump administration could credibly argue it would not require ratification by the US Senate, preventing it from being able to reject the agreement.

Since I last posted them a few weeks ago, I have made some additional changes to my proposed peace terms to end the war in Ukraine which I believe represent the best terms for Ukraine that Russia could possibly agree to. The first change I made is to have Ukraine pull all its military forces, but not Border Guards, out of the areas of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhia that Russia does not currently control in exchange for Putin dropping his June 14, 2024 demand that any peace deal must include Russian annexation of all four oblasts according to their constitutional borders. I believe that Putin might be willing to do so providing all of Russia’s other stated objectives are included in a final peace agreement including a Ukrainian military withdrawal from those territories including most importantly Ukrainian neutrality outside of NATO, partial demilitarization and partial “denazification” of Ukraine as noted in Article Seven below.

The second major change I have made is for Russia to allow Ukraine to increase the size of its Border Guards to 150,000 to satisfy Ukraine’s demand that its military be capped at 250,000 troops as Border Guards technically are not part of the Ukrainian armed forces during peacetime so Ukraine could accept Russia’s proposed limit of 100,000 Ukrainian military servicemen and still have 250,000 men in uniform. I also added a provision for Russia to reduce the number of its troops in the annexed territories to 250,000 to match Ukrainian troop reductions. I also included a renewal of the 1997 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Russia and Ukraine which commits each country to guarantee the territorial integrity of the other and prohibits them from going to war against each other or using their territory to threaten the security of the other. In addition, I added a provision for the US to commit to reduce the overall number of US troops in Eastern Europe to the level they were at the end of Trump’s first term.

Another major revision I made is that Ukrainian troops could be equipped with unlimited numbers of short-to-medium range combat drones with ranges of up to forty kilometers as well as long-range reconnaissance drones to enable them to defend Ukraine from potential future Russian aggression. I also added that any Ukrainian weapon systems in excess of treaty limits would have to be sold or transferred to other countries or otherwise disposed of. Finally, the biggest change I made was taking the bilateral US-Russian commitments out of the Russo-Ukrainian peace treaty and incorporating them into a separate US-Russia Strategic Framework Agreement which would not require Senate ratification. I believe these changes will benefit the US as well as both parties to the conflict and make a final peace deal easier to finalize. I am happy to note that an earlier version of these peace terms was sent to a member of Trump’s national security team who is a Cabinet-level official. Hopefully, they will use them as a template for peace negotiations with Russia which are beginning tomorrow.

Here are my revised terms in full:

Russia-Ukraine Peace Agreement

1. All hostilities between the parties to the conflict will cease effective immediately. Ukraine pledges to amend its constitution back to its pre-2019 status to enshrine its permanent neutrality as well as to prohibit the presence of foreign troops and bases on its territory while removing its commitment to become a NATO member. 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 oblasts along the current lines of control, as well as Crimea, and renounce any attempt to retake them by military force, pending a final determination of their status by 2040. Furthermore, all Ukrainian military forces, excepting Border Guard units, shall be withdrawn from the constitutional borders of the four oblasts. In return, Russia shall renounce all claims on the Ukrainian-controlled portions of these oblasts and shall withdraw all its troops from Kharkiv, Mykolaiv and Sumy oblasts while guaranteeing Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

3. A four-kilometer-wide demilitarized zone, policed by an international force of no more than 15,000 unarmed United Nations Military Observers from states belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement led by India, shall be created along the entire length of Ukraine’s border with the four Russian-controlled oblasts 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. In exchange for Ukraine accepting Russia’s proposed limits on the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including National Guard, of 100,000 personnel, as outlined in the final April 15, 2022 draft of the Istanbul Agreement, Russia agrees to an expansion in the size of Ukraine’s Border Guard to 150,000 personnel. Border Guard units shall not be equipped with tanks or “strike systems,” except for drones. The total number of Ukrainian soldiers, airmen and sailors, including Border Guard and reservists, shall not exceed one million. In return, Russia agrees to limit the number of its troops in former Ukrainian-controlled territories to 250,000.

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, warships and medium to long-range combat drones as well as air defense missile systems. In addition, the maximum range of Ukraine’s combat drones shall not exceed forty kilometers. All weapon systems exceeding these limits will be returned to their nations of origin, sold or destroyed. 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 public and private Russian financial and economic assets seized by Ukraine, or for which it was the recipient, shall be fully restored to their Russian owners. Russia and Ukraine agree to renew the 1997 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership, committing each party not to use its territory to harm the security of the other and further their shared goal of peaceful co-existence.

7. The March 2022 decree banning eleven Ukrainian political parties shall be lifted. Ukraine shall hold presidential and parliamentary elections within four months of the signing of this treaty. All far-right, ultra-nationalist political parties shall be banned from participation in the Ukrainian government and all far-right, ultra-nationalist militia groups shall be disbanded. The Russian language shall be restored as one of the two official languages of Ukraine with equal status to the Ukrainian language. The rights of Ukraine’s Russian minority population as well as the rights of Ukraine’s Orthodox Christian church members shall be guaranteed by law.

US-Russia Strategic Framework Agreement

1. The U.S. guarantees that NATO will never expand eastward. 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 to their Russian owners. In addition, the US will encourage its allies not to recognize or attempt to enforce the warrant issued by the International Criminal Court against the President of the Russian Federation.

2. In return for a withdrawal of all Russian troops from Belarus and a reduction of Russian troops in its recently annexed territories to 250,000, all 20,000 U.S. troops shall be withdrawn from those nations in Europe that were not part of NATO prior to 1999 and the overall number of U.S. troops in Europe shall be reduced to their 2021 level. The U.S. will encourage its western European allies and Canada to withdraw their troops from those nations 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.

3. 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.

4. In return 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.

Explaining the Terms

Understanding the principal aims of the US and Russia in fighting the war in Ukraine, a workable peace could be realized that would satisfy the minimum requirements of both sides. The proposed peace plan above would serve to accomplish the primary US goal of keeping Ukraine independent from Russia with control of over four-fifths of its internationally recognized territory. It would also achieve Russia’s main goals of Ukraine pledging to never become a NATO member state and having all NATO troops withdrawn from Ukraine. Such a peace agreement would also "recognize the reality on the ground" as Russia has outlined as being one of its requirements by ending the war along the current line of control.

The size of the Ukrainian armed forces and the number of its major weapon systems and ranges will undoubtedly again be one of the main sticking points for the US just as it was with the Istanbul agreement. The Kellogg plan fails to account for Russia’s demand that any peace agreement include any provisions for Ukrainian disarmament and instead calls for the US massively expanding Ukraine’s military power after a peace deal is realized to deter potential future Russian aggression. Russia will not sign any peace agreement that does not include a major reduction in the size of the Ukrainian armed forces and achieving “a sanitary zone” along its borders by eliminating all Ukrainian ‘strike systems’ with ranges of over forty kilometers to establish a ‘sanitary zone’ to protect Russia from future attack. Accordingly, it will be important to map out a compromise arrangement along the lines of Article Five above recognizing that Russia’s main concerns have to do with limiting the quantity and ranges of Ukrainian offensive “strike systems” rather than shorter-range, defensive weapon systems on which they could prove more flexible.

Implementing this agreement would prevent a single additional square inch of Ukrainian territory from 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 armed forces would remain one of the largest in Europe, with nearly a million men and four to 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 Kharkiv and Mykolaiv oblasts, renounced all claims on additional Ukrainian territory, and agreed to many Ukrainian-requested limitations on its number of troops and weapons as a major victory.

President Trump is reportedly calling for a reduction of 20,000 US troops in Europe, the exact number I proposed in Article 2 of my previously proposed US-Russia Strategic Framework Agreement. 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 both of these excellent moves. A US military withdrawal from Eastern Europe should be a core part of the peace plan to reduce our perceived threat to Russia and greatly improve bilateral relations with Moscow. Given Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s statement last week that the US focus was moving from Europe to defend our own borders as well as to deter Chinese aggression in the Western Pacific, it would make good strategic sense to transfer all 150 US B-61 nuclear gravity bombs from Western Europe to the Western Pacific. If the US were to withdraw all its troops from Eastern Europe and transfer all its non-strategic nuclear weapons from Western Europe to the Western Pacific, it would force our European allies to greatly increase their own defense spending knowing that there would no longer be a US nuclear tripwire that could pressure the US to go to war with Russia over a small Baltic or other European country in which the US has little to no national security interest. Furthermore, the provision that neither the US, nor Russia may send heavy bombers or surface warships within two-hundred miles of the other’s territory, except for the Bering Strait given the eighty-five-kilometer distance between our two countries would not only provide increased security to both sides but would significantly contribute to eliminating the chances of miscalculation leading to accidental war.

As I have long advocated, President Trump should consider withdrawing all US ground troops from Europe to shift the burden of providing European security to our allies by the end of 2025 given that their GDP is over four times larger than Russia’s and then transform NATO into a European-led alliance as I proposed back in 2019. The US has not had any need or security interest to station any ground troops in NATO since the last Russian troops were withdrawn from central and eastern Europe over three decades ago. The US could continue to maintain key air and naval bases as a hedge along with its nuclear umbrella over NATO. President Trump should also make clear that the US Article V security commitment to NATO is conditional on whether a US military involvement in a war in Europe is both approved by Congress and in the US national security interest. The truth is that Article V does not commit the US to send any troops to fight an aggressor in Europe let alone declare war. If the US were to merely send a limited quantity of arms to the country being attacked, our Article V commitment would be satisfied.

German Chief of Defense, General Carsten Breuer, a potential candidate for the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe in the event Trump were to transition NATO to being a European-led alliance.

Instead of having a US Supreme Allied Commander Europe, that role could be transitioned to a German General given the fact that Germany is the most populous European NATO (excluding Turkey) with the largest economy, particularly if the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party wins the German national elections this weekend since it supports a return to conscription to increase Germany’s conventional military strength. While British, French and Polish leaders might object to the appointment of a German Supreme Allied Commander Europe, they should not be as it would only serve to more fully integrate Germany into a united Europe and collective security arrangement and might encourage Europe’s largest economy to increase its defense spending to compensate for a potential withdrawal of all US ground troops before the end of President Trump’s term in office. That said, I have been advocating for Germany to develop its own modest nuclear arsenal since the 1990’s and with the Trump administration working to incentivize Europe to pick up the burden for its own defense, that idea is more sensible now than ever.

Only a Trump-Imposed Peace Deal Can Save Ukraine’s Independence

In a recent interview with former Fox News host Megan Kelley a couple of weeks ago, Secretary of State Marco Rubio admitted that Ukraine has lost the war and is being destroyed, running out of troops to fight the war and losing more and more territory. That is why Rubio stated that the war needs to end and both sides need to give something up to reach a peace deal. Gordon Hahn published an article exposing how close Ukraine is to suffering a military collapse underscoring the importance of Trump imposing a cease-fire as soon as possible given it is the only hope we have to save Ukraine. "The front may suffer a catastrophic collapse before Trump’s presumed deadline, giving Russia an even greater upper hand in talks. The collapse of Ukraine’s defense fronts along all or nearly the entire line of combat – which stretches from Kherson just north of Crimea to the east, then north through Donetsk to Kharkiv and Sumy – appears imminent. Some fronts may hold longer but are unlikely to survive 2025. All last year, Russian territorial gains and, for the most part of the year, Ukrainian casualties have increased with each passing month, as I predicted would be the case over a year ago. The territorial advance now is accelerating at an ever more rapid pace and could lead to major breakthroughs to the Dnepr (Dnieper) River at any time now. At the same time, the state off the Ukrainian military is disastrous."

Ukraine is exaggerating Russian losses by a factor of 5 to 10 times, and they are underestimating their own casualties by a factor of ten in order to mislead their Western allies into believing Ukraine is winning instead of being on the verge of military collapse as is actually the case. Zelensky recently claimed Ukraine has lost only 44,000 dead soldiers when in fact it's around 430,000 dead and nearly 1.1 million casualties overall which explains why some Ukrainian motor rifle battalions don't have enough infantry to fill a single BMP-2 infantry combat vehicle while the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Russian forces outnumber Ukraine by five to one along most sections of the Eastern Front. Ukraine is desperately short of infantry to man the trenches contradicting Zelensky’s recent claim that Ukrainian troops outnumber Russian forces by a factor of 1.5 to 1. Ukraine had up to 50,000 amputees after 17 months of war. Now it likely has up to 100,000 amputees after thirty-six months of war, which would constitute a far greater number than any nation suffered during World War One including Germany which had 67,000 amputees.

Meanwhile, the Washington Times is reporting Russian young men are being offered a $3.88 million ruble sign up bonus, equivalent to $40,000, to join the army as the Russian army continues its massive military buildup to fight NATO in the event it makes good on its threats to send tens of thousands of troops into Ukraine. Since the war began, Russia has been successful in recruiting over half a million troops expanding the size of its army by three times since the war began, thanks to falling Russian casualty rates due to increasing Russian battlefield superiority in terms of troops, tanks, aircraft, combat drones and artillery. All Russian troops deployed inside of Ukraine’s former territories are volunteers as Russian law does not allow it to deploy conscripts to a combat zone whereas Ukraine is operating with an increasingly middle-aged conscript army with extremely low morale with high desertion rates.

All of the battlefield indicators suggest that a massive Russian victory is inevitable with Russian forces likely advancing all the way to the Dnipro River line by summer putting Russia in a position to occupy forty-five percent of Ukraine’s territory. The Wall Street Journal states that some Ukrainian battalions are operating at as little as ten percent of their end strength and are being commanded by Senior Lieutenants which means many of Ukraine’s Lt Colonels, Majors and Captains have been killed off. Most Ukrainian front lines units have soldiers in their 40s and 50s which means most of their troops in their 20s and 30s have likely been killed off or seriously injured preventing them from returning to combat.

Conclusion

US leaders should realize that Ukraine needs an immediate cease fire and peace agreement much more than Russia does do to the fact that its military situation is increasingly dire with Ukraine suffering over 1,000 casualties a day on average while Russian casualties are approximately four times less with Russia able to continue the war indefinitely. In the event peace talks fail due to a US refusal to offer peace terms minimally acceptable to Russia, all Russia would have to do to fore Ukraine to surrender would be to send 150,000-250,000 troops to invade and surround Kyiv from Belarus. Ukraine doesn't have enough troops to man more than one major front so that would likely cause the Donbass front to collapse, and the Russians could break through to the Dnipro River.

As I have been saying, there is no increase in the number of troops, weapons or peacekeepers deployed to Ukraine that will provide it with security against Russian aggression absent a peace agreement that makes Russia feel secure from NATO attack. A million-man peacetime active-duty Ukrainian army armed to the teeth with all the latest US and NATO weapon systems could not deter future Russian aggression if Ukraine continues to align closely with NATO and Russia deems Ukraine as a continuing existential threat to Russian security. Accordingly, the US negotiation team should seek to largely accommodate Russia on those fronts to expedite the signing of a peace agreement ending the war.

Only a peace agreement that recognizes Russia’s legitimate security concerns with regards to Ukraine and NATO will ensure Russia does not attack Ukraine again. The best way to make Russia feel secure from NATO is to expel NATOs presence from Ukraine and restore its neutral buffer state status. That has always been the only path to achieve true security for Ukraine as has been proven by the fact that Russia never attacked Ukraine from 1991-February 2014 prior to the CIA-backed Maidan coup. Ukraine would be much better off to accept armed neutrality along the Swedish model and to resume its Treaty of Friendship with Moscow to guarantee Russia never has any reason to attack it again.

President Trump speaking at a rally with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson in November shortly before his re-election victory.

While speaking with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson at a rally just days after his re-election, Trump demonstrated his clear understanding of the existential threat to America posed by the Sino-Russian alliance, which Biden’s war in Ukraine has caused to become ever closer, and his determination to do whatever is necessary to break it apart. "The one thing you never want to happen is you never want Russia and China uniting,” he said. “I'm going to have to un-unite them, and I think I can do that, too. I have to un-unite them." 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. It should also establish a new security architecture that benefits all European nations under the principle of “indivisible security” with the aim of providing security to all parties instead of promoting needless conflict with Russia by continued NATO imperial expansion.

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 restoring a more favorable balance of power and 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. Before 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.

© David T. Pyne 2025

David T. Pyne, Esq. is a former U.S. Army combat arms and Headquarters staff officer, who was in charge of armaments cooperation with the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas from 2000-2003, with an M.A. in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. He is the former President and current Deputy Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. He also serves as a member of the Committee on the Present Danger-China. He recently served as Defense and Foreign Policy Advisor to former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. He has also co-authored the best-selling new book, “Catastrophe Now--America’s Last Chance to Avoid an EMP Disaster” and his new book “Restoring Strategic Deterrence” will be published in March or April 2024. He serves as the Editor of “The Real War” newsletter at dpyne.substack.com and previously served as a contributor to “The National Interest”. Here is a link to his interview archive. He may be reached at emptaskforce.ut@gmail.com.

Recent Interviews

January 20th-Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the impact of President Trump’s inauguration on US national security policy including the war in Ukraine, Gaza and what I see as China’s plan to blockade Taiwan later this year. Here is the link to the interview.

January 21st—Interview on Main Street Radio with Jon Twitchell discussing a host of issues including the Biden crime family pardons, President Trump's inauguration and executive orders, and my proposal to enable the US to exert greater influence over Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal. I will also discuss my new peace plan and the prospects for Trump achieve a permanent peace deal ending the war in Ukraine. Here is a link to the interview.

January 30th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss my latest articles focusing on Trump’s leaked 100-day Ukraine war peace plan and the prospects for Trump realizing his noble goal of achieving a permanent peace deal ending the war in Ukraine. Here is the link to the interview.

February 3rd—Interview with Nima Alkhorshid on his Dialogue Works podcast to discuss my latest plan to end the war in Ukraine in days not months as well as my analysis of Trump’s 100 day peace plan and its prospects for success in ending the war in Ukraine. Here is a link to the interview.

February 3rd—Interview with COL Rob Maness to discuss my latest articles focusing on Trump’s leaked 100-day Ukraine war peace plan and the prospects for Trump realizing his goal of achieving a permanent peace deal ending the war in Ukraine. Here is the link to the interview.

February 4th—Interview with Dr. Pascal Lottaz on his Neutrality Studies podcast to discuss my latest plan to end the war in Ukraine in days not months as well as my analysis of Trump’s 100 day peace plan and its prospects for success in ending the war in Ukraine. Here is a link to the interview.

February 6th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss Trump’s official Ukraine war peace plan due for release this weekend and the chances that Russia might accept it. Here is the link to the discussion.

February 14th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss comments by President Trump about his phone call with Ukraine discussing ending the war in Ukraine and the comments by Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at the Munich Security Conference. Here is a link to the interview.

Upcoming Interviews

February 17th—Interview with KUTV CBS Channel 2 News to discuss why I support President Trump and his agenda to put America First both at home and abroad.

February 18th—Panel Discussion on RT’s Crosstalk program to discuss Trump’s bold new peace negotiations with Russia to end the war in Ukraine without Ukraine or the EU having a seat at the table and to discuss the UK’s proposal to send tens of thousands of NATO peacekeeping troops to Ukraine that could lead to a direct war between Russia and NATO. Here is a link to the interview.

February 18th—Interview on Main Street Radio with Jon Twitchell discussing my latest articles focusing on Trump’s leaked 100-day Ukraine war peace plan and the prospects for Trump realizing his noble goal of achieving a permanent peace deal ending the war in Ukraine. Here is the link to the interview.

February 24th—Interview with COL Rob Maness to discuss the increasing feud between President Trump and Zelensky, whether he will agree to sign Trump’s proposed agreement to split the profits for Ukrainian rare earth sales and the Trump administration’s adoption of many of my recommendations not just for the terms of a peace deal with Russia but also a more comprehensive peace ushering in a grand partnership for peace between our two great nations. Here is the link to the interview.

February 24th—Interview with Brannon Howse on Brannon Howse Live to discuss the increasing feud between President Trump and Zelensky, whether he will agree to sign Trump’s proposed agreement to split the profits for Ukrainian rare earth sales and the Trump administration’s adoption of many of my recommendations for a comprehensive peace including a new US-Russia entente ushering in a grand partnership for peace between our two great nations.

February 25th—Interview with Raphael Machado to talk about when the EU will resume natural gas purchases from Russia, the implications of the German national elections and whether the EU will succeed in their bid to derail peace talks between Trump and Putin and defeat his plan to restore peace and stability to Ukraine and to Europe.