Recent remarks by Vice President J.D. Vance in his February 14 interview with The Wall Street Journal signal a smart and realistic approach to US efforts to end Russia’s war on Ukraine. Vance rightly emphasizes that the United States must leverage multiple instruments of power to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiate in good faith and secure a lasting settlement that aligns with American interests while ensuring Ukraine remains independent and sovereign.
The Current State of the Conflict
The war in Ukraine is not static but lacks the dynamism of its initial phases. Russia continues to make costly but incremental advances while launching long-range strikes against Ukraine’s critical infrastructure. The Ukrainian military faces persistent challenges, including ammunition shortages and recruitment struggles. Meanwhile, Ukraine has managed limited incursions into Russia’s Kursk region, showcasing its ability to take the fight beyond its borders with modest success.
The Trump administration has stepped up efforts to bring the war to an end. President Trump spoke to Putin and Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky this week, and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth tempered expectations of fellow NATO defense ministers, noting, for example, that that restoration of Ukraine’s 1991 border is “unrealistic.” While Hegseth’s comments sparked concern among allies, my former Atlantic Council colleague, Daniel Fried, observed that Hegseth’s remarks ought to be read with nuance and may signal a tough approach from the Trump administration.
Vance’s Remarks
Vance’s comments seem to confirm the Trump administration has no intent of letting Putin dictate the terms of negotiations. In his Wall Street Journal interview, Vance correctly advocated keeping economic and military options on the table to maintain pressure on Putin.
Notably, the Trump administration’s efforts contrast starkly with the Biden administration’s risk-averse approach to the war. While Biden and his team should be commended for their efforts to keep Ukraine in the fight, he dithered over key decisions, slowly escalating aid while avoiding a definitive strategy. The vague commitment to support Ukraine “as long as it takes” amounted to an open-ended policy without a clear objective. The lack of a structured plan weakened U.S. credibility and emboldened Russian resolve.
A Path Forward: A Realistic but Strong U.S. Approach
The military situation remains largely a stalemate, with Russia’s manpower advantage giving it the ability to prolong the conflict and wear down Ukraine by attrition. The Trump administration should focus on securing a resolution that ensures Ukraine’s sovereignty while deterring Putin from reigniting conflict.
One of the key questions to navigate is that of territorial control. A full restoration of Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders through military means appears unlikely at this point, and a near-term resolution is likely to involve Russian control over some of Ukraine’s territory for the foreseeable future. However, that does not mean the U.S. and its allies should accept Russia’s territorial gains as legitimate in a near-term settlement. Ukraine may also be able to regain some of its territory by exchanging portions of Russia’s Kursk region, but a land-for-land swap will not result in a return to Ukraine’s 1991 borders. Full restoration of Ukraine’s territory will almost certainly need to be deferred to future negotiations.
The next challenge is securing Ukraine against Russian aggression and deterring Putin from rebuilding and renewing the war. Ukrainian NATO membership will remain a red line for Putin, making it an unlikely inclusion in any immediate agreement. That said, NATO membership should not be permanently removed from consideration, as Article V protection would serve as a powerful long-term deterrent to Russian aggression.
In the near term, verbal security assurance from key parties to the negotiations must be reinforced with credible military deterrence. Toward this end, options include:
- A European-led peacekeeping force stationed on the ground in Ukraine.
- A robust US air and naval presence in the region to serve as a backbone to the peacekeeping force and provide long-range strike capability to hold Russian assets at risk.
- Long-term military support for Ukraine, including efforts to harden it against future Russian aggression by, for example, improving its long-range air defense systems as well as its anti-ship systems to deter Russia’s Black Sea fleet and protect Ukrainian export routes.
Beyond military considerations, the United States and its European allies should commit to rebuilding Ukraine’s economy to reinforce its independence. Key initiatives should include:
- Closer EU ties, accelerating Ukraine’s path toward European economic integration.
- Strategic cooperation with the U.S., particularly in developing Ukraine’s supply of critical minerals.
- Rebuilding Ukraine’s infrastructure, especially its war-ravaged energy system.
Closer US-Ukraine economic cooperation, especially on strategic resources such as critical minerals, will solidify the US-Ukraine relationship and increase the likelihood of ongoing bipartisan support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence.
By negotiating from a position of strength, the Trump administration has the chance to end the bloodshed in Ukraine, secure Ukraine’s independence as a bulwark against Russian expansionism, and foster mutually beneficial economic ties between Washington and Kyiv. No near-term agreement will be perfect and unresolved questions – especially pertaining to territory and NATO membership – will remain, but by keeping pressure on Putin there is an opportunity for a resolution favorable to US interests.
