During his tour of India this week, US Vice President JD Vance made it clear that the Trump administration’s patience with Russia and Ukraine has run out. Calling for an end to stalling on both sides, he warned: “It’s time for them to either say yes [to the most recent American peace proposal] or for the US to walk away from this process.” Donald Trump himself later added fuel to the fire by accusing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of being the main obstacle to peace.

Though his comments may spark backlash, Vance’s position is entirely aligned with American interests. Indeed, the Trump administration may see it as wise to end its involvement in peace talks — and in Ukraine — before sinking political capital into additional rounds of haggling or, worse, accepting a bad deal that comes with further US obligations.

The most important US priority as it pushes for a settlement is ending its involvement in the war, quickly and completely. Trump, like his predecessors, views Ukraine as holding few long-term strategic benefits for the United States. Meanwhile, officials argue that continued military assistance drains US defence resources needed elsewhere, and warn against deepening entanglements such as security guarantees or intelligence sharing.

America has accomplished its wartime aims in Ukraine. It kept Russia from seizing control of Kyiv with generous military support and forced Moscow to pay a high cost for its invasion, in the form of hundreds of thousands of casualties and the loss of tens of thousands of missiles, thousands of tanks, and valuable warships.

The second US priority in ongoing talks is stabilising relations with Russia. The continued hostility and risk of direct conflict between the world’s two largest nuclear powers is not sustainable. Trump has been berated for his outreach to Vladimir Putin, but he is sensible to push for a rapprochement. Russia is too large and influential a country to be sidelined like North Korea or Iran — even if its influence outweighs its economic or conventional military strength.

Ending the war is the third, but least important, objective for the United States. Peace in Ukraine is a desirable outcome, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient for achieving the other two, more important goals. While it is true that Russia might gain additional territory, this will not increase the threat Moscow poses to the United States. What’s more, Washington can continue to work bilaterally with Russia on issues like arms control and sanctions relief even if peace talks end with no deal.

The proposal Washington has put on the table is a fair one. It offers both combatants some carrots, and advances all three US priorities. It keeps Ukraine out of Nato, thus limiting US commitments; freezes the conflict on its current lines; offers Russia US recognition of Crimea along with sanctions relief to restore some economic ties; and gives Ukraine the ability to seek continued military support from Europe.

But the proposal should be the Trump administration’s best and last offer. It should also have an expiry date. An end to the conflict in Ukraine is not so important for US security to be worth more costly concessions to either Kyiv or Moscow. The Trump administration should not be afraid to make good on its threats to walk away from peace negotiations — and end its military involvement at the same time — if the two sides reject the current terms.

Critics will say that if the United States walks away it will have “abandoned Ukraine”. But the Trump administration’s ultimate responsibility is to advance America’s best interests, not Ukraine’s.

---

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

jekavanagh

---