Donald Trump has claimed he could end the war between Russia and Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office. He now calls for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine and the start of negotiations. However, history shows that what cannot be achieved on the battlefield is unlikely to be achieved at the negotiating table. An immediate ceasefire in the Ukraine war could be a double-edged sword for the United States under current circumstances. Russia occupies significant Ukrainian territories, including Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and parts of Zaporizhzhia, accounting for approximately 18% of Ukraine’s territory. Ukraine has made incursions into Russia’s Belgorod and Bryansk regions, which represent less than 1% of Russia’s total territory. How can both sides achieve their goals at the negotiating table?
Trump special envoy Keith Kellogg suggests ending the war by stopping arms deliveries to Ukraine if it refuses to engage in peace talks – and increasing arms deliveries to Ukraine if Russia does not do the same. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has suggested the possibility of negotiating a ceasefire agreement with Russia, proposing that the status of the occupied territories could be addressed diplomatically at a later stage. This reflects Ukraine’s constrained position in the face of various pressures. Russia is open to peace talks, but is unlikely to reach a major compromise with Ukraine.
Despite massive NATO support, sufficient military resources, such as munitions and air defense systems, have not been provided to enable Ukraine to effectively counter Russian advances and produce decisive results in its strategic offensives, due to unclear strategic objectives and effective implementation measures.
Sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies have not crippled the Russian economy as expected; instead, the Russian economy grew by 3.1% in the third quarter of 2024 and its national debt remains at 14.6% of GDP, roughly the same level as at the start of the war in 2022. In 2023, Russia spent $160 billion on its military needs, representing approximately 40% of its budget. For 2025, Russia has already allocated 13.5 trillion rubles (more than $145 billion) for national defense, which represents 32.5% of the budget.
With support from North Korea, Iran, China and other countries, Russia will likely continue its efforts on Ukrainian soil. On the other hand, Ukraine is unlikely to achieve a decisive victory in the short term. If its allies continue the current strategy while reducing their financial aid, Ukraine risks exhausting its resources and prolonging the conflict into an unpredictable stalemate, which could put it at a disadvantage in negotiations.
There is no doubt that an immediate ceasefire could help prevent further casualties and provide much-needed relief to those affected by the conflict. It can also ease the immediate burden of military and financial support to Ukraine, freeing up resources for domestic priorities and addressing other international challenges, particularly those from China. However, an immediate ceasefire under the current battlefield map could also benefit America’s rivals, the authoritarian regimes. First, it would strengthen Russia’s control over the occupied territories, allowing Moscow to claim partial victory and bolster its domestic support. Such an outcome rewards territorial aggression and undermines international norms.
Second, it could weaken the United States’ commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, signaling to adversaries that aggression can succeed if sustained long enough. European allies could interpret a ceasefire as a sign of wavering American resolve, leading to fractures within NATO and a weakening of transatlantic unity. Allies in Asia, including Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines, could challenge the reliability of U.S. security commitments in the region.
Third, China is closely monitoring the Western response to the Ukraine crisis, focusing on alliance cohesion, the impact of sanctions, and the dynamics of military support. An immediate freeze on the war would demonstrate limited Western resolve and suggest that territorial aggression can produce lasting gains. This reinforces Beijing’s belief that the international community would be reluctant to intervene militarily in Taiwan and encourages China to change the status quo on the Taiwan Strait, believing it can handle economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure.
Fourth, an immediate ceasefire does not guarantee long-term peace. The lack of a comprehensive peace agreement leaves underlying problems unaddressed and only postpones hostilities, making the prospect of lasting peace elusive. Historically, frozen conflicts like those in Georgia’s South Ossetia and Moldova’s Transnistria have fostered prolonged instability, allowing aggressors to consolidate control over occupied territories and exert influence over affected states. The lesson of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea demonstrates that tolerating an aggressor only encourages the expansion of its ambitions.
Instead of an immediate ceasefire agreement, it is necessary to further support Ukraine in regaining its territory by changing the current strategy before reaching a ceasefire agreement. Historical patterns show that successful territorial reconquests often require the assertion of military force before engaging in peace talks. A ceasefire without the necessary restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty risks legitimizing the Russian invasion. A successful Ukrainian counter-offensive could not only strengthen Ukraine’s leverage in the negotiations, but also serve as a powerful deterrent against future territorial ambitions of other authoritarian regimes globally.
The United States will not compromise American national interests when mediating a ceasefire agreement between Ukraine and Russia. However, it will be extremely difficult for any U.S. president to negotiate a peace deal at this time, as an agreement will need to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and its internationally recognized borders, align with U.S. support for an international order rules-based and ensure a balance between the two sides instead of rewarding Russian aggression. It should strengthen U.S.-European relations rather than undermine allied unity, adhere to long-standing principles of U.S. foreign policy rather than prioritizing political gains, and enhance the United States’ reputation as a leader. reliable worldwide. Otherwise, an immediate freeze on the war could potentially harm long-term U.S. national interests and directly embolden the ambitions of aggressors around the world.
Further reading on international electronic relations