Moscow can feel encouraged by the beginning of discussions. By agreeing to a summit with Trump, Putin has avoided punishing new energy sanctions. Meanwhile, the Russian leader’s exact offer has been shrouded in confusion. US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff has reportedly been the source of misunderstandings, while European officials have requested multiple calls with the American side in a bid to understand the exact nature of Putin’s offer. Still, one aspect is clear: on Friday, Trump announced that “we’re going to get some back, we’re going to get some switched. There’ll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both.”

It seems highly unlikely that this will be to the betterment of the Ukrainian side. While Russia had previously demanded full control along the entire frontline, Putin reportedly told Witkoff that he would offer a complete ceasefire if Ukraine agreed to withdraw forces from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, along with Crimea, leaving them to Moscow. European officials received mixed signals from US counterparts as to whether Putin would pull out of the other contested regions of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, or merely freeze the frontlines. One US official indicated that Russian forces would remain at the current lines, negotiating land swaps with Ukraine until Moscow possessed all of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. The prospect of a land swap is puzzling: since Ukraine no longer holds any Russian territory, it would mean offering Kyiv-controlled land in return for the territory that Moscow currently occupies. Trump clearly finds the land swap proposal reasonable, while Zelensky has understandably rejected it, saying that “Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier”.

This is the scenario that Kyiv has long dreaded: that the mercurial US President, even after months of painstaking, behind-the-scenes diplomacy to repair relations between Washington and Kyiv, would strike a deal with Putin over the Ukrainian leader’s head before trying to foist it on Kyiv. What motivates Trump in all this is obvious — after successfully calming conflicts between India and Pakistan, and Armenia and Azerbaijan, he sees Ukraine as the ultimate entry on his Nobel Peace Prize nomination form. Besides, the Russians are still dangling a broader reset of relations between the US and Russia, which Trump sees as an opportunity to make highly lucrative economic deals.

As things stand, Alaska looks set to go down in history as another Yalta, as the two superpowers sit in a room and divide up Eastern Europe as though the Cold War never ended. Or, more precisely, two men. The risks of Trump and Putin meeting privately are stark: beneath the recent bluster, the US President still harbors a deep admiration for the Russian leader’s authoritarian grip on power. Putin, a former KGB officer, brings a spy’s talent for deception and manipulation, not to mention an instinct for flattering Trump and echoing even his most outlandish convictions. This is Putin’s dream scenario.

There is, of course, the possibility that this is all merely a ploy on Putin’s part. He may have felt some pressure from the US secondary sanctions being placed on Russian trade partners, including India, and decided this was the moment to blindside Trump with an offer — with little intention of following through with it. Kremlin messaging has been especially maximalist of late, with the Russian leader claiming back in June that “all of Ukraine” belongs to Russia. And indeed, Putin’s plan to mass-produce Oreshnik missiles and place them on Belarusian territory does not suggest a man eager for peace. A source told Reuters that the Russian General Staff believes the Ukrainian front will “crumble” within two or three months. The Russian military often provides excessively optimistic projections to the leadership, but these are also the views being whispered in the corridors of the Kremlin. From Putin’s perspective, therefore, there is no military impetus for him to make a deal other than the fact that Ukrainian forces withdrawing would be easier for him than fighting further battles.

If Russia’s offer is legitimate, where does Ukraine stand? There is talk of Trump hosting a trilateral meeting with Putin and Zelensky, but Putin would never agree to it. He has spent years casting doubt on Zelensky’s legitimacy as a leader and falsely claiming that the Ukrainian government is a “Nazi” regime. To meet Zelensky as an equal would be to confer upon Ukraine a sovereign status that Putin does not want to accord it.

In terms of timing, European officials have indicated that Trump and Putin’s proposal would have two phases — first, Ukraine would withdraw from Donetsk and the frontline would be frozen; second, Trump and Putin would agree on a peace plan to negotiate with Zelensky. Yet this plan is clearly flawed, setting Kyiv up for a scenario whereby Trump would be persuaded by Putin to back a deal that is disadvantageous to Ukraine, and then try to bully Zelensky into it. To lay the foundations for any lasting peace, the timings must be altered. If Trump is serious about earning his Nobel Peace Prize, he and his team should be going to and fro between Zelensky and Putin. After his meeting with Putin, Trump should announce a summit with Zelensky as soon as possible to make clear that the desires of Ukraine, as the injured party, are foremost in any discussions.

In the meantime, Zelensky has been wise to turn to Europe to shore up support and develop a counterproposal, one that stresses the need for a ceasefire before any other steps taken, for territory to be exchanged in a reciprocal matter, and ironclad security guarantees for Ukraine. Those security guarantees need to be robust — which means far stronger than anything the “coalition of the willing” can currently provide. Yet given the risk of Trump cutting off aid and intelligence to Ukraine if Zelensky rejects these unfair terms, Europe needs to intensively prepare for a scenario whereby it alone tries to supply Ukraine with weaponry.

Suggested reading

How Russia fell out of love with Trump

By Ian Garner

Zelensky is also right to reject a lopsided deal that would involve his forces backing away from fortified defensive lines and which does not mention Russia withdrawing from the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant or from positions in Kharkiv, Sumy, Dnipropetrovsk and Mykolaiv oblasts. For Ukraine to withdraw from the contested oblasts would merely put Russia in a stronger position to attack and make further gains at a later date.

However, many in Ukraine are horrified not merely by the grossly unequal terms of this offer but at the prospect of Ukraine surrendering any land at all — a conversation that frankly had to happen sooner or later. Zelensky has pointed out that the Ukrainian constitution prevents him from doing any such thing, while various Ukrainian MPs have indicated that they would not vote to ratify a deal that would see parts of the country left to Russia to secure an end to the conflict.

It’s clear why Zelensky has maintained the maximalist, patriotic position that he cannot cede any territory to Russia. It is difficult to accept that land acquired through hostilities and atrocities should ever belong to the aggressor. It is similarly difficult to accept that Ukrainian citizens will be lost to Russian occupation. They would be subjected to ruthless suppression of Ukrainian identity and an atmosphere of constant fear and suspicion. They are also likely to face egregious human rights abuses and civilian executions. One wonders how long local resistance fighters can cling to hope once they realize their life under brutal occupation has been quietly accepted by their own government.

But even Zelensky has admitted that Ukraine will struggle to get the occupied territories back by military means. In his New Year address, he called for a “just peace” and reassured those in Moscow’s grip that “one day, Ukraine will return to be together”. Unless Kyiv is able to turn the tide of this war, then any peace deal will likely involve Russia holding on to some of its gains, with Ukraine and the West refusing to legally acknowledge the new borders, and Kyiv planning to take them back through diplomatic means later. As problems with desertion and exhaustion persist, even Ukrainian citizens are now reluctantly coming around to the idea of accepting — de facto, if not officially — Moscow’s occupation of the captured lands, provided that entails receiving security guarantees. However, we should expect stringent Russian demands for Kyiv to surrender further Ukrainian territory — and that will be harder to sell to the public.

There has to be greater public acknowledgment in Ukraine that Russian-occupied land will need to be abandoned, if only for now, for Moscow to agree to any peace. That prospect is not merely unjust — it is monstrous. But it is reality. It is the nature of war. And unless Kyiv can reverse the course of the war and reclaim its occupied territories, we must now finally confront what peace truly looks like.

Last week, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) assessed that Russia could pose “a significant military challenge to NATO allies, particularly the Baltic states, as early as 2027”. If there is a ceasefire in Ukraine by mid-2025, Russia may have long-term confrontation in mind. According to the German security services, it has been rebuilding its military capacity and could quickly redeploy units to imperil NATO’s eastern flank. But while we can all agree that Russian leader Vladimir Putin would prefer NATO not to exist, would he truly be willing to wage war to make that happen?

It is easy to dismiss talk of Russia-NATO war as fearmongering or Cold War era thinking. Yet, the UK government is updating its contingency plans. Meanwhile, those who have engaged in military planning admit taking the prospect seriously. Gabrielius Landsbergis has first-hand experience of gauging Putin’s military goals. As Foreign Minister of Lithuania during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he was forced to confront the possibility that his country might be next on Putin’s list. “It was on many people’s minds that if Ukraine really does fall in a couple of days, it was obvious that Putin’s ambition would not stop with Kyiv. If he can go, he will continue,” he tells me.

Attacking a NATO member would have brought Putin into direct confrontation with the whole of the Alliance. But, according to Landsbergis, that wouldn’t stop him. “I think that his ultimate goal is dismantling the Western-run global system and some of the targets are very close to him.” It is a view shared by General Sir Richard Shirreff, former NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who tells me that “the challenge that NATO faces is to prevent it [the conflict] turning into a shooting war because if Putin were to get his way I’m absolutely convinced it could”.

Landsbergis and Shirreff are in agreement about the most likely scenario in which Putin would attack. A false flag operation in the Baltics, followed by local Russian minorities demanding protection. In Shirreff’s book 2017: War with Russia, he envisaged that, after an invasion of Ukraine, Moscow’s agents would foment unrest in Latvia by murdering pro-Kremlin activists and carving insignia on their corpses to pin the blame on Latvian nationalists. Moscow’s snipers then execute Russian speakers at a Riga protest. All this lays the pretext for Moscow to invade the Baltics, ostensibly on a mission to protect Russian minorities in those countries.

Suggested reading

Who is preventing peace in Ukraine?

By David Patrikarakos

Landsbergis sees two possible options for such an incident. Firstly, the Suwałki Gap — “there is a trainline going from Russia through Belarus all the way through to Kaliningrad and it brings Russian non-military passengers”. Secondly, Narva in Estonia — “it’s right on the border, it’s a town mostly inhabited by Russians and fits the Russian ‘save the Russians everywhere in the world’ narrative quite well”.

The “how” seems established, but the “when” is trickier to assess. The Russian Defense Minister has indicated that there could be war within a decade, Danish intelligence has said within five years, and now the IISS is claiming it could potentially be two. Sir Richard estimates that Putin may be ready in three to five years, depending upon the impact of casualties in Ukraine and how the Russian economy fares. What is clear is that Putin is not ready yet. He is “completely fixed on Ukraine and has no capacity for anything else” for the time being.

Yet, if Trump successfully negotiates a ceasefire in Ukraine, that could free Putin’s hand. The US President is also encouraging Putin’s ambitions in other ways. Danish intelligence assessed that Russia would be more likely to use force against NATO allies if it felt the Alliance was “militarily weakened” or “politically divided”. This is “particularly true if Russia assesses that the US cannot or will not support the European NATO countries”.

Landsbergis agrees with this assessment. The messaging from the US over the last couple of months “definitely reassures” Putin that “he can expect changes in European security to a point where it would be feasible for him to consider this option (of war)”. Two main factors would influence his decision: “the United States no longer being present in Europe and Ukraine not being able to defend its front”.

Trump’s actions now may be eroding Alliance unity enough to be laying the foundations for a Russian invasion. Sir Richard tells me that the US President’s tariffs and threats to annex Canada and Greenland are “hitting right at the heart of Alliance cohesion”. “The basis of the post-Cold War order, of the unity of purpose and Alliance cohesion and America being unshakably in support of the West, is starting to be undermined,” he says. “Give it a few more years of the major European economies failing to step up to the mark on defense spending, of Trump economics and tariffs, and all that begins to make Nato quite conceivably look like the busted flush which Putin thought it was in 2021 (with the fall of Afghanistan). Putin reckons that Nato is bluffing with Article 5 because Trump has said ‘I’m giving up on you’”. The Russian leader may decide that any invasion would have to take place during Trump’s term of office, so as to benefit from the White House being occupied by a man who might not rush in to save Europe.

So if the Russian leader does order his troops into Nato territory, what would happen then? Military historian Dr Peter Caddick-Adams believes that the initial stages would not go well for Russia. “Nato would close the Baltic Sea to Russia which means that it couldn’t get anything out of St Petersburg or Kaliningrad which would ground its entire navy. Turkey would do the same thing in the Black Sea. Russia would be left with a conventional force which is largely dissipated.” However, Sir Richard is more pessimistic, telling me that “the traditional Russian way of war is mass firepower, total destruction, brutality, onslaught and all the terrible things they’ve done to the Ukrainian civilian population. We’re talking about massive conventional operations, conventional fighting, tank battles, destruction of cities in Eastern Europe.” The ruthlessness would not only serve Putin’s war aims but also satisfy a desire for personal vengeance after years of the West supplying Ukraine with weaponry and thereby frustrating his ambitions.

There is also the risk of nuclear blackmail, as we saw during Russia’s war in Ukraine. Sir Richard says that Russia’s Zapad exercises have envisaged the occupation of a Baltic nation followed by blackmailing of the West: “If Nato threatens to come back at you, all you do is threaten the Nato capitals within range of Kaliningrad. You then present decision makers in London or Washington with a choice — accept it or risk nuclear escalation. The Russians would gamble that nobody is going to risk the destruction of Western civilization and all the cities of Western Europe for the sake of the population of a Baltic state.” Such a strategy may prove effective, the West having already judged Moscow’s nuclear warnings as no idle threats. In October 2022, then US President Joe Biden said that Putin “was not joking when he talks about the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons.”

Suggested reading

Europe needs a battle plan

By Wolfgang Munchau

For any Brits reassuring themselves that a conflict would be restricted to a Russian occupation on the other side of Europe or tank battles in the Polish countryside, Sir Richard has a rude awakening. “If it turned into a shooting war, you could expect hypersonic missiles which are within range of London to be taking out key buildings as well as key sites across the United Kingdom.” Lacking an Iron Dome, Britain is “completely defenseless against that sort of threat”. “I cannot see how the army could generate the force levels required without conscription. The army would not have time to recruit and train anyway because this would very quickly become a war of national survival. Sabotage? Absolutely. Assassinations? Absolutely.”

And what would be Putin’s goals in warring against Nato? When would he be satisfied? “I would specify his objectives as decoupling America from European security, seeing the destruction or at least the neutralization of Nato and the achievement of what he described as the most appropriate security settlement for Europe, being a new Yalta — in other words, a Russian empire in Eastern Europe on the bones of the old Warsaw Pact,” says Sir Richard. Putin once characterised the break-up of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century”. If he goes to war, he may not be finished until that has been reversed.

So what can the West do now to discourage Putin? Effective deterrence, including Nato membership for Ukraine, and strong defense spending are key, according to the ex-general. “It should be at 4-5%”, he says, even though “this is a really unpopular thing for a Labour government that’s committed to growth and that faces the prospect of having to make some really tough decisions about tax and cuts to public services”. However, while Labour has pledged to raise UK defense spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, the promise came shortly before a meeting between Prime Minister Keir Starmer and President Trump, suggesting that it may have been more to appease the White House than from any real commitment to fending off Russia long-term.

Besides, it is not as though Moscow has shied away from aggression towards the West already. “The war goes on against NATO by hybrid asymmetric means”, explains Sir Richard, listing allegations of Russian interference in Western elections and the 2018 Salisbury Novichok attack. He says that some activity may even be conducted with an eye to preparing for a larger battle, such as reports of drones near RAF airbases. “All that kind of stuff is in the Russian playbook.” In Putin’s mind, Ukraine is merely the frontline. NATO and Russia are already at war.