The ongoing war in Ukraine remains a critical global issue, with world leaders, think tanks, and policymakers continuously debating the best approach to securing a lasting peace. As the conflict enters another year, different strategies have emerged, each with its own perspective on how to end hostilities while ensuring Ukraine's sovereignty and regional stability.
Some advocate for a maximum pressure strategy, aimed at forcing Russia into a fair negotiation by leveraging military and economic power. Others favor a negotiation-based approach, which seeks to engage Russia from a position of strength while combining military aid with diplomatic efforts. A third perspective focuses on economic and security stability, emphasizing the long-term consequences of a Russian victory and arguing that sustained support for Ukraine is in the best interest of the United States and its allies. Finally, a middle-ground approach attempts to balance American involvement in Ukraine with the broader national security focus, particularly regarding China.
Each of these strategies presents a unique vision for how peace can be secured in Ukraine. Below is an in-depth analysis of these four possible scenarios.
One of the most aggressive approaches to securing peace in Ukraine is the maximum pressure strategy, which has been outlined by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) in its report titled “How to Win: A Seven-Point Plan for Sustainable Peace in Ukraine.” This plan revolves around forcing Russia into a position where it has no choice but to negotiate in good faith by increasing military and economic pressure.
Unrestricted Military Aid to Ukraine: The U.S. and its allies should provide immediate and full-scale military assistance to Ukraine without any caveats. This includes advanced weaponry, ammunition, and other military supplies aimed at weakening Russia’s forces.
Tightening Economic Sanctions: Sanctions on Russian financial institutions and energy sector entities should be expanded. Additionally, frozen Russian assets should be used to support Ukraine’s defense and post-war reconstruction.
Expanding Secondary Sanctions: Sanctions should not only target Russia but also apply to authoritarian regimes that support Moscow, such as China, Iran, and North Korea.
Ensuring European Involvement: Any peace talks should involve both Ukraine and European nations, preventing Russia from dictating terms in negotiations.
A European-Led Ceasefire Enforcement Mechanism: A coalition of European nations, with backing from the U.S., should oversee any ceasefire with an international force to ensure its enforcement.
Fast-Tracking Ukraine’s EU Membership: Europe must make swift progress toward integrating Ukraine into the European Union, further solidifying its position as part of the Western alliance.
While the maximum pressure strategy aims to bring Russia to the negotiation table, it carries significant risks. Russia has historically shown resilience against economic sanctions, and increasing military aid could escalate the conflict rather than end it. Additionally, some European nations may hesitate to support such an aggressive approach due to concerns about energy dependencies and economic fallout.
A more diplomatic alternative has been proposed by Josh Rudolph, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund and former U.S. official on Russian and Ukrainian policy. This approach suggests that negotiations should be conducted from a position of strength, ensuring that Ukraine does not compromise on critical security concerns while seeking a peace agreement.
Strengthening Ukraine’s Position: The U.S. should continue arming Ukraine with advanced weaponry to ensure it can defend itself and pressure Russia into making concessions.
Economic and Energy Leverage: One of the most effective ways to weaken Russia is through lowering global oil and gas prices, which would deplete Russia’s primary source of revenue. The U.S. should work closely with energy-rich allies like Saudi Arabia to achieve this goal.
Knowing When to Walk Away: If Russian President Vladimir Putin refuses to make meaningful concessions, the U.S. should not hesitate to withdraw from negotiations and continue applying pressure.
Europe’s Role in Peacekeeping: European nations should contribute financially and militarily by supplying weapons and deploying up to 100,000 peacekeeping troops to enforce any agreement.
Ukraine’s NATO Membership as a Last Resort: If Putin refuses to accept a fair peace deal, the West should move forward with Ukraine’s integration into NATO to provide long-term security guarantees.
While a negotiation-based strategy aims for a diplomatic resolution, it may be difficult to persuade Russia to accept peace terms that favor Ukraine. Additionally, some critics argue that arming Ukraine to the hilt could escalate tensions, prolong the war, and increase the likelihood of direct NATO-Russia confrontation.
A third approach focuses on the economic and security consequences of either supporting Ukraine or allowing Russia to win. A report titled “Dollars and Sense: America’s Interest in a Ukrainian Victory” from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) argues that the cost of abandoning Ukraine far outweighs the cost of continued support.
Avoiding a Costly Russian Victory: If Ukraine were to fall, Russia could expand its influence across Europe, forcing the U.S. to increase defense spending by an estimated $808 billion over five years to counter Russian aggression.
Long-Term Benefits of Supporting Ukraine: Strengthening Ukraine’s military and economy would create a battle-tested European ally, reducing the burden on U.S. forces in the long run.
Weakening Global Threats: A Russian victory would embolden authoritarian states like Iran, China, and North Korea, potentially triggering conflicts in other regions.
While this strategy highlights the long-term benefits of supporting Ukraine, it also acknowledges the short-term costs. U.S. policymakers must balance military aid with domestic economic concerns, ensuring that support for Ukraine remains politically and financially sustainable.
The Heritage Foundation, in its Project 2025 Presidential Transition Project, offers a middle-ground approach that acknowledges divisions within the U.S. political landscape. It seeks to limit U.S. involvement while ensuring Ukraine remains independent.
Focusing U.S. Support on Military Aid: Instead of committing to full-scale economic aid, the U.S. should prioritize military assistance while leaving economic support to European allies.
Fully Funded Assistance: Any aid to Ukraine must be financially sustainable, avoiding long-term economic strain on U.S. taxpayers.
Recognizing China as the Primary Threat: This strategy argues that China, rather than Russia, is the biggest geopolitical threat to U.S. interests, meaning American resources should be allocated accordingly.
While the middle-ground strategy attempts to balance support for Ukraine with broader U.S. strategic goals, critics argue that limiting economic aid could weaken Ukraine’s ability to sustain itself in the long run. Additionally, reducing U.S. involvement too soon could encourage Russian aggression to persist.
Each of these four strategies offers a unique path to securing peace in Ukraine. The maximum pressure strategy seeks to force Russia into submission, while the negotiation-based approach prioritizes diplomatic leverage. The economic and security strategy emphasizes long-term consequences, whereas the middle-ground approach attempts to balance U.S. involvement with broader strategic concerns.
The ultimate resolution to the war in Ukraine will likely involve a combination of these approaches, shaped by evolving military, economic, and political factors in the coming months and years.
