The idea of a war without end is a common figure of speech, yet, as Fred Iklé’s renowned work states, “Every War Must End”[1]. War, as Carl von Clausewitz emphasised, is a means to achieve political objectives. For these objectives to be meaningful, they must be attainable within a finite timeframe and pursued at a cost proportional to the desired outcome. Wars may end through outright victory or defeat, with one side surrendering. Alternatively, combatants may come to the rational conclusion that, in the absence of a clear path to victory, it is better to end the conflict. Since his victory in the U.S. presidential elections, we’ve seen a lot of speculation about the future foreign policy of a Donald Trump 2.0 administration, particularly concerning his famous claim that he could end the war between Russia and Ukraine « in 24 hours ».
Some believe that Trump will give Volodymr Zelensky an ultimatum by threatening to stop US military aid, forcing the Ukrainians to capitulate to Moscow’s demands. Donald Trump Jr and Elon Musk have certainly made comments along these lines (Musk even mocked the notion of Ukrainian sovereignty). As the end of the fighting in Ukraine approaches, it is essential for Europe to be involved in discussions aimed at bringing it to an end. Indeed, beyond the future of Ukraine, the security of the entire European continent is at stake.
Yet an examination of Trump’s Ukraine-related appointments reveals far more nuanced attitudes, notably among Keith Kellogg, future peace envoy to Ukraine. His views were published in April 2024 in a long paper[2] co-authored with Fred Fleitz, in which the two authors castigated Biden’s approach as diplomatically clumsy and tactically inept. According to Kellogg and Fleitz, Ukraine should have been armed at the end of 2021, when the threat of invasion loomed, and then at the start of the war, in order to expel Russian forces. On the other hand, too little and too late military aid would simply have prolonged the conflict by irritating Russia, with no prospect of a Ukrainian victory or a negotiated way out. In June, Kellogg and Fleitz presented Donald Trump with a plan recommending that American aid to Kiev be made conditional on acceptance to negotiate; on the other hand, they suggested forcing Moscow to start talks by threatening to increase military aid to Ukraine if it refused. Kellogg felt (unlike Trump himself) that Biden’s authorization to fire ATACMS long-range missiles against targets in Russia could strengthen the Western position in future negotiations.
The future head of US diplomacy Marco Rubio, who belongs to the interventionist wing of the Republican Party, should also be taken into account. Many describe this son of Cuban immigrants as a “hawk” and “neoconservative”, in favor of a strong global role for the United States with the involvement of the armed forces, in contrast to the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement, which advocates international disengagement. In 2023, Rubio co-authored a bipartisan bill in Congress prohibiting a US president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO. A fierce anti-communist, Rubio could take a hard line, especially in Latin America (by seeking regime change in Cuba and Venezuela), but also towards China. On Ukraine, he did vote against $95 billion in U.S. military aid by 2024, and would like to see a negotiated peace to end the current “impasse”. Nonetheless, he called Vladimir Putin a “gangster” and a “thug” during his own presidential campaign in 2015, praised the “courage” of the Ukrainians, and says he’d like an eventual peace to benefit them – a peace that would allow Americans to focus on what Rubio sees as the main threat: Beijing’s actions.
We find similar positions to Rubio’s in Mike Waltz, appointed to the post of National Security Advisor. Although generally in favor of supporting Kiev, he insisted that this should not be a blank check, and that the Europeans should increase their own financial contribution. Waltz wants to put an end to a war he sees as resembling that of 1914-1918, and is alarmed by recent escalations (North Korean troop commitments, Russian testing of the Orechnik hypersonic missile). At the same time, Waltz emphasizes his collaboration with his predecessor Jake Sullivan, presenting a united front despite their differences: “For our adversaries who think this is a moment of opportunity, that they can play one administration off against the other – they’re wrong.”
For now, Donald Trump’s promise to stop the war in 24 hours seems utopian. The “greatest peace deal in history” is far from a sure thing.
Read more on February 1st, 2025.
[1] Every War Must End – Columbia Classics – by Fred Charles Iklé (Author)- January 26, 2005.
[2] « America First, Russia, & Ukraine » – Lt. General (Ret.) Keith Kellogg, Fred Fleitz, April 11, 2024.
« Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine was an avoidable crisis that, due to the Biden Administration’s incompetent policies and rejection of the America First approach to national security, has entangled America in an endless war. The Biden Administration’s risk-averse pattern in the armament of Ukraine coupled with a failure in diplomacy with Russia has prolonged the war in Ukraine, which now finds itself in a war of attrition with Russia. Bringing the Russia-Ukraine war to a close will require strong, America First leadership to deliver a peace deal and immediately end the hostilities between the two warring parties. »
https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/america-first-russia-ukraine