|
As the United States and European nations weigh potential “security guarantees” for Ukraine, discussions have veered toward how to coax Russia into accepting terms for war termination in Ukraine that are more acceptable to the West.
President Trump has pledged that the United States would mirror a European move to impose severe tariffs on countries that import Russian energy — a political lift so heavy that it likely reveals the administration’s reticence to risk pushing Russia, China and India even closer together. Even his more recent comments, highlighting the possibility of Ukraine recapturing territory with Europe’s help, likely represent an attempt to shift responsibility for managing the conflict to America’s transatlantic allies. The limited coercive leverage at the West’s disposal highlights that there is no avoiding a compromise settlement.
In a shifting international order, how can a compromise peace in Ukraine be beneficial for both U.S. grand strategy and the broader world? Going forward, in what ways will maximalist approaches to term-setting need to give way to compromise — and to more dynamic and flexible relations with a variety of actors? And how should the United States and its allies adjust course in the current negotiations?
|
