Orysia Lutsevych, Chair of the Ukraine Forum at the British Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, cautions against the allure of a ‘quick peace’ often touted by potential future U.S. President Donald Trump. “Representatives of Trump’s campaign claim that he could end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours, setting high expectations for a rapid ceasefire. Yet, without reliable security guarantees from the West, agreed upon in advance, a ceasefire would merely set the stage for an even greater catastrophe,” she explains.
Lutsevych argues that if external pressure on President Zelensky intensifies to the point where he agrees to a rushed ceasefire, the consequences could be dire. “Leaving Ukraine in limbo, without a defence agreement or a clear commitment to collective security, would be political suicide for the president. Zelensky would face a fierce backlash from Ukrainian society, which is already bearing the heavy cost of this war.”
What, then, could be seen as acceptable and realistic security guarantees for Ukraine if Donald Trump chooses to block, at least temporarily, Ukraine’s NATO membership? Orysia Lutsevych suggests a possible solution: the formation of a coalition of countries committed to continuing arms supplies to Ukraine, training its military personnel, investing in joint weapons production, and, if necessary, deploying forces on Ukrainian soil. “It is crucial that nuclear powers, such as the UK and the US, are involved,” Lutsevych emphasised in her comments to The Ukrainian Week.
The researcher also noted that despite the staggering losses—around 700,000 dead or wounded—and the fact that, nearly three years into the war, Russia has failed to secure full control of even the Donetsk region, Moscow shows no signs of de-escalation. “Russia is not seeking an end to the war,” Lutsevych said. “Rather, it may be trying to buy time to stabilize its economy and rebuild its military.”
Most likely, Putin will agree to a ceasefire only if he is certain he can “finish the job” of bringing all of Ukraine under his control. He is expected to attempt this by manipulating the upcoming elections—much as Russia did in Georgia after its first invasion and occupation of 20% of its territory in 2008 and again last year,” says Orysia Lutsevych.
Given the right political conditions, the Georgian experience could be applied to Ukraine, with the ultimate aim of establishing a puppet regime in Kyiv.
“A ceasefire along the current front line would leave Russia in control of critical assets, severely undermining Ukraine’s economic potential,” the political scientist notes. “Key natural resources are yet another battleground. Ukraine holds a third of all European lithium deposits, and two mines are currently under Russian occupation. Additionally, Ukraine produced 7% of the world’s titanium. The Zaporizhzhia titanium-magnesium plant is perilously close to the front line, and Russia has already incorporated this region into its constitution as part of its territory.”
How realistic is it to align the interests of Kyiv and Washington after Trump’s inauguration? While it won’t be easy, there is still a chance. To make this happen, Orysia Lutsevych stresses that Ukraine and its European allies must convince the American leader that defeating Putin is the most strategic investment in U.S. security.
“If Trump offers weak guarantees and yields to Putin’s demands, Ukrainian sovereignty will be fatally undermined—and the U.S. will likely soon face a more emboldened autocrat, determined to spark a new war,” warns the Deputy Director of Chatham House.
