Radical thinking needed to deliver a lasting peace in Ukraine - Patrick Mercer

There are only a few weeks left before President Trump takes power. Then, we’re told, the fighting in Ukraine will be finished ‘in 24 hours’. Bold words from Donald Trump: bold words that were uttered before the situation changed dramatically.

Since he said this, Russia has fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile and her forces are now pushing forward on every sector of the front lines with an almost reckless vigour.

It’s reasonable to say, I believe, that the next moves in this war have never been so critical. Critical for Ukraine herself, but also for every nation that has an involvement in the conflict. So - and this sounds almost theatrical - with world peace hanging by a thread, it’s time to take stock and ask how Mr Trump might realise his promise and if he can’t, what happens next.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Now, too much of the Western media insists that things in Ukraine are tricky, but broadly fine; that Kiev may be suffering, but she’ll ultimately prevail. There’s talk of stalemate, of Russia reeling under desperate pressure, of terrible casualties and even an imminent collapse of Mr Putin’s rule. Well, that’s deluded, I fear. Ukraine’s stricken and although Russia’s certainly hurting, that larger, now battle hardened country looks certain to scoop up all the territory she’s conquered unless something remarkable happens.

President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago. PIC: AP Photo/Evan VucciPresident-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago. PIC: AP Photo/Evan Vucci
President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago. PIC: AP Photo/Evan Vucci

None of the designs for peace looks particularly remarkable at the moment, though. Several nations have made proposals with China’s and Turkey’s being the most resilient, but Mr Trump’s ideas will certainly be the most influential.

There are three, broadly similar plans coming from the incoming Republicans, all of which have been widely leaked to the media. Crucially, none of them agrees with the ‘Victory Plan’ put forward by Mr Zelensky a couple of months ago, the crux of which was an almost immediate entry by Kiev into NATO.

Such an aspiration won’t work because a central plank for Russia is that Ukraine should never join NATO - and on that point the Kremlin won’t be shifted. Similarly, the US plans foresee NATO troops (although not Americans) being used to enforce a ceasefire. Again, confronting NATO forces risks a direct clash and is unacceptable to Mr Putin.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But there’s an easy alternative to all these plans (if you believe the rose tinted view of most of the Western media): we should simply bludgeon and threaten Russia into accepting our terms.

That’s nonsense, though: the Kremlin has watched with interest our disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan, noted the lack of a coherent front from NATO’s members and our - mostly - hollowed out fighting forces backed by flaccid, foreign policies.

Then there’s the situation on the battlefields. With US, UK and European eyes firmly on Syria and the rest of the Middle East, Moscow’s troops are advancing almost everywhere. Casualties are certainly heavy, but they’re facing Ukrainian forces who are beset by a lack of manpower and starved of weapons and ammunition by an increasingly war jaded West.

With Russia dominating, there’s going to be no Trumpian quick fix to the fighting. But, there could be a radical, difficult, but practical solution which should stop the fighting and might set the conditions for more muscular diplomacy.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

First, Ukraine must withdraw to properly prepared defensive lines west of the Dneiper, stop attacking deep into Russia and go strictly onto the defensive. An already battered Kremlin would be far more inclined to negotiate from this position: Mr Putin could present a victory, however partial, to her people and the politically perilous casualty lists would taper off.

Next, Mr Trump should strong-arm NATO into fixing a definite date for Ukraine’s entry. There will certainly be dissenting nations, but if they cannot be reconciled, they might be invited to seek another alliance entirely. Three to five years would give time for things to settle, but it must be combined with elections in Ukraine next year which would give Mr Zelensky a dignified exit route. A new President in Kiev would allow much greater freedom for political manoeuvre. In parallel, there will be (unpredictable) changes in Moscow’s regime.

Then, a peacekeeping force of non-NATO forces and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe needs to be deployed at least to Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, Odessa and the Dneiper crossings. They should be as lightly armed as possible with only defensive weapons. Now, which nations could be persuaded to provide such a force is quite another question.

Whilst this would only provide a truce and does not address complex questions such as how Ukraine’s highly armed extremists would react to such a ‘betrayal’ by Kiev, it goes further than the Istanbul agreements which so nearly succeeded in 2022. This concept removes the threat of Ukrainian or NATO troops directly facing Russians and it bestows (perhaps) enough wriggle room for Kiev’s entry to the alliance to be thrashed out.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Winning a lasting peace is difficult and needs even greater strength than winning a war. Mr Trump has that grit and, of course, understands the Kremlin and its leader far better than the Biden regime. But, none of the plans that is being talked about so far provides anything beyond a recipe for further bloodshed.

A peace that is going to last needs radical thinking, compromise and enormous patience from all sides. Perhaps we’ll see real statesmen at work next year producing real solutions - but don’t hold your breath.

Patrick Mercer is a former MP for Newark and Army colonel.

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.

News you can trust since 1754
Follow us
©National World Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.Cookie SettingsTerms and ConditionsPrivacy notice