
<p>One of the issues that concerns me about a Trump presidency is his apparent position on the war in Ukraine. ; I have repeatedly written that it is essential for America’s and the various NATO nations’ security &#8212; and American leadership in the world &#8212; that Putin be totally defeated.</p>



<p>With that goal in mind, I have criticized President Biden’s too little/too late policy in providing support and aid to Ukraine. In fact, I believe that Putin could have been stopped before he invaded had Biden taken stronger action as Russian troops were assembling on the Ukrainian border.</p>



<p>I defined victory as all Russian troops being withdrawn from Ukrainian sovereign soil – including areas that they currently occupy in the Donbas Region and the Crimea &#8230; that Russia be forced to pay reparations for the physical damage and human cost of the war &#8230;. and that Ukraine be admitted to NATO immediately. I would also like to have Putin removed from office, but that would only be a sweetener in the deal.</p>



<p>Trump does not seem committed to that goal. ; His position is that the war is costing too many lives and too much treasure. ; That there is a face saving resolution for Putin that would give him a partial victory. ; But there must be concessions on his part.</p>



<p>So, what would a Trump plan look like? ; I do not believe that he would stand aside and allow Putin to take over Ukraine, as Trump’s political adversaries claim. ; That is just campaign rhetoric.</p>



<p>If a total victory is not the goal, the most logical – and marginally acceptable – plan would be to have Ukraine cede portions of the Donbas Region to Russia (as little as possible), but not the Crimea. </p>



<p>Conversely, Putin would accept the legitimacy of Ukraine&#8217;s borders as defined in the agreement. BUT (ß A very big but) &#8230; nothing would be ceded until the new Ukraine was ADMITTED into NATO. Not proposed or planned for some time in the future, but admitted – signed, sealed and delivered &#8212; as a full member. I also would personally require some level of reparations from Russia.</p>



<p>Personally, I still believe that such a plan would provide Putin with too much of a victory, but there is a degree of unfortunate pragmatism that comes to play. ; It would end the war and save human lives. ; It would remove a significant cost burden for the United States and NATO members. ; It would get Ukraine into NATO. ; If that had been done earlier, there would likely not have been a Russian invasion.</p>



<p>One of the possible obstacles to Ukrainian membership in NATO is the requirement that all member nations must approve each new member. ; The leader with the closest friendship with Putin is President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey.  ;In a normal situation, he could be expected to vote “no” on Ukraine’s membership. ; ; After all, it took a lot of backroom negotiation to get Erdoğan to agree to admit Finland and Sweden. ; However, if Putin were to agree to the terms of the peace proposal, Erdoğan would be hard pressed to block Ukraine’s admission.</p>



<p>Any deal that would cede any land to Putin MUST include Ukraine entering NATO as a non-negotiable precondition. ; ; Without that, giving Putin any land without some concession on his side is a clear victory for the Madman of Moscow – and a license to continue his aggressive ambition to recapture the nations of the old Soviet Union.</p>



<p>In addition, America and the world democracies would have to take strong symbolic and real actions to demonstrate to other potential aggressors – such as China and North Korea – that any invasions will be met with unified opposition – potentially including military force.</p>



<p>As much as it would not be my preference, I could live with such an unholy pragmatic deal on Ukraine as opposed to surrendering the entire nation &#8212; and other nations in the future &#8212; to Putin&#8217;s aggressions. The deal would end, temporarily at least, the bloodshed and destruction. It would enable Ukraine to return to being a secure democracy. It would also enable America and our allies to devote more resources in support of Israel’s war on world terrorism.</p>



<p>It should not signal a withdrawal of American leadership in the world, but a realignment designed to exert leadership by pushing back against Iran-sponsored terrorism – and any ambitions China and North Korea might entertain in the belief that America lacks the power or resolve to stop them.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

How Trump could end the Ukrainian war
