A shift in strategy is likely necessary for the Ukraine war, especially with President-elect Donald Trump taking office. While the current U.S. strategy has been largely effective, it is time for a fresh approach that aligns with the next administration’s priorities.
Any incoming administration would be expected to review critical security issues like the Ukraine conflict. Given that 2025 may be the point where the current U.S. strategy reaches its limits, Trump will need a new plan to match his goal of bringing an end to the war as quickly as possible, but one that is grounded in practical strategies.
For nearly three years, the Biden administration’s approach has centered on supporting Ukraine “as long as it takes,” a stance that Trump’s reported pick for national security advisor, Rep. Michael Waltz, has criticized as more of a slogan than an actionable plan.
Winter intensifies the urgency for strategic changes in Ukraine
While the Biden administration deserves credit for assisting Ukraine in pushing back Russia’s early advances, the conflict has stagnated over the past two years, with little progress from the introduction of advanced weaponry like F-16s, Abrams tanks, and ATACMS missiles. As winter looms and Ukrainian cities brace for continued Russian attacks, a shift in strategy toward more realistic options is needed.
Trump’s claim that he could resolve the conflict within 24 hours seems overly optimistic, especially given that Putin has already seized Ukrainian territory and is unlikely to stop fighting at Trump’s request. Trump’s strategy will need to leverage both sides of the conflict and develop a time-sensitive plan to press for peace.
A new U.S. and NATO strategy should prioritize giving Ukraine a final opportunity to reclaim occupied territory in 2025. While Ukraine made some headway in its 2022 counteroffensive, progress has slowed in subsequent years. If Ukraine succeeds with a new strategy, it would still need to pivot toward negotiations for a lasting peace by late 2025.
Following the 2025 counteroffensive, if Ukraine fails to regain substantial territory, the U.S. should focus on ending the fighting and establishing a stable peace, which serves American interests.
Ukraine could maintain claims to occupied territories but agree to forgo military action to reclaim them, while Russia would cease aggression and agree to mechanisms ensuring Ukraine’s security in the long term. The new American strategy should aim to end the fighting by 2025, with these key elements:
First, unless a major counteroffensive succeeds in early 2025, U.S. and NATO assistance should pivot toward a more limited program that focuses on defensive arms. This aid should remain open-ended, as the timeline of Russia’s aggression remains uncertain, and continued economic support for Ukraine should also come from Europe and Japan.
Second, the U.S. should implement stronger economic sanctions on Russia to pressure it into negotiating a quick peace, potentially utilizing a portion of Russia’s frozen assets to incentivize a settlement. Third, Western nations should signal their willingness to ease sanctions over time if Russia agrees to a genuine peace deal.
Fourth, the U.S. could explore alternatives to NATO membership for Ukraine’s long-term security, which might be more acceptable to Moscow. One proposal could involve deploying American and other foreign military trainers to Ukraine as a deterrent, with the option for NATO membership if Russia does not agree to peace within a set period.
Although no strategy can guarantee an end to the war, this plan would ensure that the U.S. upholds its strategic interests, supports Ukraine’s sovereignty, and reduces the risks of further escalation, while maximizing the likelihood of a rapid and sustainable peace.
