The White House has now acknowledged that it is unlikely to achieve a ceasefire by its aspirational Easter deadline of 20 April. This is not surprising. While Donald Trump pressured Kyiv into accepting his terms by cutting off military aid, his influence over Moscow is far weaker — especially with Russia gaining ground on the battlefield.

But his administration does have at least one point of leverage: its willingness to renegotiate America’s role in Europe’s security architecture, a longtime Russian demand. Critics will view such a concession as appeasement that comes at too high a cost, but if Trump and his advisors want a quick settlement, this may be a trade they are forced to make.

Soon after peace talks began, Trump expected that Ukraine would be the holdout. He has already changed his tune, telling reporters he is “very angry” with Putin’s foot-dragging. His ability to alter the Russian President’s calculus is limited, however. For three years, Russia has weathered economic sanctions, and even harsher measures are unlikely to force Putin’s capitulation — especially considering that he views Ukraine as an existential issue.

Some Trump advisors propose threatening more military aid to coerce Russia, but this is impractical. With US stockpiles depleted and priorities in the Middle East and Asia, Washington cannot spare additional weapons for Ukraine.

Trump still has at least one bargaining chip. Putin won’t come to the table to avoid economic pain or be cowed by new weapons arriving on Ukraine’s front line, but he might negotiate more seriously if offered what he wants most: a revised US military footprint in Europe that addresses the “root causes” of the Ukraine war.

The presence of US forces on Russia’s border has been a long-running irritant for Putin, one he tried to alleviate with demands delivered to Nato members in December 2021 before invading Ukraine. While his attack on Ukraine had many drivers, his concerns about US and Nato encroachment in Eastern Europe were near the top of the list.

Trump and his closest national security confidants seem more open than past administrations to taking Russia’s security concerns seriously. So far, however, US negotiators have stopped short of explicitly linking concessions on the American role in Europe to Russia’s support for near-term peace in Ukraine, seemingly hoping they can achieve a ceasefire first and negotiate a rapprochement with Moscow separately.

This dual track strategy has and will continue to come up short. If Trump and his inner circle are serious about winning a quick ceasefire, then tying Russia’s cessation of hostilities to a drawdown of US military forces along Nato’s front line or a reduction of the American role in Nato’s collective defence might be their best bet.

Such a trade would come with costs. It would likely provoke a strong reaction from the Washington national security establishment — including in Congress — and could burn some of Trump’s political capital at home. It could also alienate European allies, deal Nato a near-fatal blow, and raise questions about US credibility around the globe. Unconcerned with the backlash, Trump may welcome an opportunity to shift US focus away from Europe.

Harder to cast aside, however, is the fact that if the United States trades away some or all its role in Europe for a ceasefire in Ukraine, it will have played its most valuable card. This will leave it with less leverage when working with Russia on other issues, such as cooperation in the Middle East or on arms control. Trump and his advisors will have to decide how peace in Ukraine ranks against other foreign policy priorities.

The 20 April ceasefire deadline was always artificial, but Trump still faces a pressing question: what price is he willing to pay for peace in Ukraine?

---

Jennifer Kavanagh is a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities.

jekavanagh

---