Ukraine's Path to Peace: Four Different Approaches

Ukraine's conflict with Russia has been ongoing for years, and various experts have proposed different strategies to achieve peace. One approach, suggested by the Center for European Policy Analysis, involves applying maximum pressure on Russia. This strategy includes providing Ukraine with immediate military support, increasing sanctions on Russian financial institutions and energy sectors, and releasing frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine's defense and reconstruction. The goal is to weaken Russia's military and improve Ukraine's negotiating position. Additionally, this approach emphasizes the importance of including Ukraine and Europe in any peace talks and supporting a European-led coalition to enforce a ceasefire. However, one expert, Catherine Sendak, advises against discussing Ukraine's potential NATO membership during these talks, as it could give Russia veto power over the alliance's expansion. Another set of recommendations comes from Josh Rudolph, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He suggests that the U. S. should approach Russian President Vladimir Putin from a position of strength, given Putin's weakened state due to his missteps in Ukraine. Rudolph also advises being prepared to walk away from negotiations if Putin refuses to make significant concessions. He proposes combining sanctions with lower oil and gas prices to financially pressure Russia and recommends arming Ukraine extensively, providing it with all of Russia's frozen assets, and inviting Ukraine to join NATO if Putin rejects reasonable peace terms. Rudolph believes that by framing continued military support for Ukraine as part of a peace deal, the U. S. can highlight the economic benefits for American workers. The American Enterprise Institute takes a different angle, focusing on the economic implications of supporting Ukraine. They argue that a Russian victory would be costly for the U. S. , requiring an estimated $808 billion increase in defense spending over five years. They contend that supporting Ukraine to victory is in America's best interest, as it would stabilize Europe and prevent further Russian aggression. Frederick Kagan, one of the report's authors, warns that a Russian takeover of Ukraine could lead to a wave of refugees and further destabilize Europe. He also predicts that a Russian victory would embolden other authoritarian regimes like Iran, China, and North Korea. The Heritage Foundation offers a more moderate approach, suggesting that U. S. involvement in Ukraine should be fully funded, limited to military aid, and have a clear national security strategy. They acknowledge the split within the conservative movement over Ukraine but emphasize that Putin's invasion is unjust and that the Ukrainian people have the right to defend their homeland. The Heritage Foundation sees this conflict as an opportunity to unite the conservative movement and focus on the broader threat posed by Communist China. In July, an interview with retired Army Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, who served as Trump's envoy for Ukraine and Russia, was published, focusing on his vision for ending the war in Ukraine. Kellogg's insights provide a unique perspective on the conflict and potential paths to resolution.