There is no such thing choosing to end a war. You can either win it or lose it.
Signing a peace deal with Vladimir Putin that leaves him with the occupied Ukrainian territories would mean his victory, and the defeat of Ukraine and America, which the Russians believe is the main target of this war.
This is not really a war between Russians and Ukrainians, but a proxy war in which Ukraine was attacked simply because it has embraced democracy and moved closer to America. This is a war between a totalitarian bloc — in which Russia is joined by Iran, North Korea and China — against the free world. If Putin wins, the entire totalitarian bloc wins, and America and the rest of the democratic world will lose.
And that would be a defeat for President-elect Donald Trump. Maybe if he were president in 2022, Putin would not have invaded Ukraine. But he did, and the war continues, and Trump now owns it.
Losing the war is incompatible with Trump’s stated policy of peace through strength. To implement this policy, it is not enough to have a strong economy, a strong army and strong words. It is necessary to show your enemies that you are ready to respond decisively to any aggression on their part. And, most importantly, to win the wars that have already begun.
The West’s goal is to win this war, and victory can be clearly defined as the fall of the Putin regime. Its fall will lead to the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine and the return of the occupied territories. It will also mean the end of Russian aggression against other countries, the strengthening of the free world and the weakening of the totalitarian union. And none of this will likely happen as long as the Putin regime remains in power.
The goal of getting rid of the Putin regime is both morally imperative and realistic. For the first time since the end of World War II, Putin has reestablished Nazism as a ruling ideology and political system, this time in Russia.
The collapse of this regime is more real than many experts think. They tend to underestimate the weakness of dictatorial power, as they just did with Bashar al-Assad. And the Putin regime is weakening every day. It is depleting resources and losing support inside Russia. It could collapse quite soon — if America does not help prolong its existence. And concluding a peace agreement with Putin that leaves him with the occupied territories would do just that.
Trump can hardly end the war now without losing it, but he can probably pause it by negotiating a truce between Ukraine and Russia. A truce means only a ceasefire, an exchange of prisoners and free passage for people. Peace and a truce are fundamentally different. A peace agreement irrevocably determines winners and losers, while a truce postpones that decision and may buy enough time for Putin’s regime to collapse and for Ukraine to emerge victorious from the war.
To ensure that a truce does not work against us, the final decision on it must be left to Ukraine and be agreed upon without any conditions, and Ukraine should emerge from it stronger and Russia weaker.
Some argue that concessions may be necessary to lure Russia into a ceasefire, even by lifting sanctions. But this is not necessary. The Russian military is exhausted and desperately needs a break. It has used most of its reserves for the current offensive in the hope that Trump will give them all the territory they can conquer before he takes office. If Russia decides to bluff that they can continue their offensive indefinitely, the West must make clear that if it does not sign a ceasefire, Western support for Ukraine will increase dramatically and may even include help from other armies.
The West’s goal is to ensure that a pause does not benefit Russia, as has happened more than once. After annexing Crimea and occupying much of the Donbas, America abandoned its commitments to the Budapest Memorandum on protecting the integrity of Ukraine and tacitly accepted the occupation of these regions. This weak Western response, coupled with high oil prices that helped fill Putin’s coffers, made him feel politically and economically strong and ready for the next aggression.
Another pause after the successful Ukrainian counteroffensive in fall 2022 was caused mainly by the failure of the West to provide the necessary support for the Ukrainian military’s continuation, giving Russia a big advantage and breathing space to recover from the panic. Most importantly, it gave it time to fortify the front line against the next Ukrainian counteroffensive, mobilize another 300,000 soldiers and set up the production of new weapons.
We can be sure that during the next ceasefire, Russia will use every day to build up its army and become stronger for a new offensive. We cannot control it, but we can counter it, making Ukraine stronger and Russia weaker.
To strengthen Ukraine, we need to continue and increase our support. Our goal is to ensure that Ukraine gains an overwhelming superiority over Russia in the quality and quantity of weapons, which, with our strength and Russia’s weakness, can be easily done. We also need to keep Ukraine’s path to NATO open.
To weaken Russia, we need to tighten economic sanctions against Putin’s regime and not lift them until it is gone. We also need to increase oil production, thereby reducing the price of oil, which is Putin’s main source of income.
All this together constitutes a policy of peace through strength and may give Ukraine a chance to win the war without even resuming military action. If we adopt this policy and Russia understands that we are serious, the Russian army, which will be demoralized by the lack of hope for victory, could collapse, leading to protests by the Russian population against this senseless war and, ultimately, the end of the Putin regime.
Yuri Yarim-Agaev is a scientist and human-rights defender and the president of the Center for the Study of Totalitarian Ideology.
